Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced

Transcription

Published Ahead of Print on April 14, 2014 as 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914
The latest version is at http://jco.ascopubs.org/cgi/doi/10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
A S C O
S P E C I A L
A R T I C L E
Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced
Peripheral Neuropathy in Survivors of Adult Cancers:
American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical
Practice Guideline
Dawn Hershman, Columbia University
Medical Center, New York; Robert
Dworkin, University of Rochester,
Rochester, NY; Christina Lacchetti and
Kate Bak, American Society of Clinical
Oncology, Alexandria, VA; Ellen M.
Lavoie Smith, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor; Patrick Gavin, Marne, MI;
Jonathan Bleeker, Sanford University of
South Dakota Medical Center, Sioux
Falls, SD; Guido Cavaletti, University of
Milano-Bicocca, Monza, Italy; Cynthia
Chauhan, Wichita, KS; Antoinette
Lavino, Massachusetts General North
Shore Cancer Center, Danvers, MA;
Maryam Lustberg, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH; Judith Paice,
Northwestern University, Chicago, IL;
Bryan Schneider, Indiana University,
Indianapolis, IN; Mary Lou Smith,
Research Advocacy Network, Plano,
TX; Tom Smith, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD; Shelby Terstriep, Sanford
Health, Fargo, ND; Nina WagnerJohnston, Washington University, St
Louis, MO; and Charles Loprinzi, Mayo
Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Published online ahead of print at
www.jco.org on April 14, 2014.
Clinical Practice Guideline Committee
approval: November 19, 2013.
Editor’s note: This American Society of
Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guidline provides recommendations with
review and analyses of the relevant
literature for each recommendation.
Additional information, which may
include data supplements, slide sets,
patient versions, frequently asked questions, clinical tools and resources, and
so on, is available at http://www.asco.
org/guidelines/neuropathy.
Authors’ disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and author contributions are found at the end of this
article.
Corresponding author: American Society of Clinical Oncology, 2318 Mill Rd,
Suite 800, Alexandria, VA 22314;
e-mail: [email protected].
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical
Oncology
0732-183X/14/3299-1/$20.00
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2013.54.0914
Dawn L. Hershman, Christina Lacchetti, Robert H. Dworkin, Ellen M. Lavoie Smith, Jonathan Bleeker,
Guido Cavaletti, Cynthia Chauhan, Patrick Gavin, Antoinette Lavino, Maryam B. Lustberg, Judith Paice,
Bryan Schneider, Mary Lou Smith, Tom Smith, Shelby Terstriep, Nina Wagner-Johnston, Kate Bak,
and Charles L. Loprinzi
A
B
S
T
R
A
C
T
Purpose
To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum prevention and treatment approaches in the
management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies (CIPN) in adult cancer survivors.
Methods
A systematic literature search identified relevant, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the
treatment of CIPN. Primary outcomes included incidence and severity of neuropathy as measured
by neurophysiologic changes, patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life.
Results
A total of 48 RCTs met eligibility criteria and comprise the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Trials tended to be small and heterogeneous, many with insufficient sample sizes to
detect clinically important differences in outcomes. Primary outcomes varied across the trials, and
in most cases, studies were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. The strength of the recommendations is
based on the quality, amount, and consistency of the evidence and the balance between benefits
and harms.
Recommendations:
On the basis of the paucity of high-quality, consistent evidence, there are no agents recommended
for the prevention of CIPN. With regard to the treatment of existing CIPN, the best available data
support a moderate recommendation for treatment with duloxetine. Although the CIPN trials are
inconclusive regarding tricyclic antidepressants (such as nortriptyline), gabapentin, and a compounded topical gel containing baclofen, amitriptyline HCL, and ketamine, these agents may be
offered on the basis of data supporting their utility in other neuropathic pain conditions given the
limited other CIPN treatment options. Further research on these agents is warranted.
J Clin Oncol 32. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
INTRODUCTION
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy
(CIPN) is a common treatment-related adverse effect and affects long-term quality of life.1 It has the
potential to result in chemotherapy dose reductions
and/or early discontinuation. The overall incidence
of CIPN is estimated to be approximately 38% in
patients treated with multiple agents,2 although this
percentage varies depending on chemotherapy regimens, duration of exposure, and assessment methods.3,4 Chemotherapy combinations with higher
incidences include those that involve platinum
drugs, vinca alkaloids, bortezomib, and/or taxanes.5
Although the pathogenesis and toxicity profiles of
these agents differ, there are several distinguishing
features of CIPN that help differentiate it from other
neuropathies.6 Classically, most chemotherapy
drugs that cause CIPN do so with a symmetric, distal, length-dependent “glove and stocking” distribution. This neuropathy predominantly consists of
sensory, rather than motor, symptoms and is dose
dependent.4,6 Sensory axonal damage with reduced
amplitude of the sensory nerve action potentials
(SNAPs) is a common finding in nerve conduction
studies.7 Conversely, motor nerve function consistently remains unchanged during treatment with
most neurotoxic agents.7 As chemotherapy is
© 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
Downloaded from jco.ascopubs.org on September 9, 2014. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2014 American Society of Clinical Oncology. All rights reserved.
Copyright 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology
1
Hershman et al
THE BOTTOM LINE
GUIDELINE QUESTION
What are the optimum prevention and treatment approaches in the management of chemotherapy-induced
neuropathies in adult cancer survivors?
Target Population
● Adult cancer survivors with chemotherapy-induced neuropathies (CIPNs)
Target Audience
● Health care practitioners who provide care to cancer survivors
Recommendations
● The following recommendations are evidence based, informed by small randomized controlled trials, and guided by clinical experience. The recommendations were developed by a multidisciplinary group of experts. Ratings for benefits, harms, evidence quality, and recommendation strength are provided in Table 3 (see Appendix Table A1, online only, for rating definitions).
Prevention of CIPN
● There are no established agents recommended for the prevention of CIPN in patients with cancer undergoing treatment with neurotoxic agents. This is based on the paucity of high-quality, consistent evidence and a balance of benefits versus harms.
● Clinicians should not offer the following agents for the prevention of CIPN to patients with cancer undergoing treatment with
neurotoxic agents:
● Acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC)
● Amifostine
● Amitriptyline
● CaMg for patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy
● Diethyldithio-carbamate (DDTC)
● Glutathione (GSH) for patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy
● Nimodipine
● Org 2766
● All-trans-retinoic acid
● rhuLIF
● Vitamin E
Venlafaxine is not recommended for routine use in clinical practice. Although the venlafaxine data support its potential utility, the
data were not strong enough to recommend its use in clinical practice, until additional supporting data become available.
No recommendations can be made on the use of N-acetylcysteine, carbamazepine, glutamate, GSH for patients receiving cisplatin or
oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy, goshajinkigan (GJG), omega-3 fatty acids, or oxycarbazepine for the prevention of CIPN at this time.
Treatment of CIPN
● For patients with cancer experiencing CIPN, clinicians may offer duloxetine
No recommendations can be made on the use of:
● ALC, noting that a positive phase III abstract supported its value, but this work has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed
journal, and a prevention trial suggested that this agent was associated with worse outcomes.
● Tricyclic antidepressants; however, based on the limited options that are available for this prominent clinical problem and the
demonstrated efficacy of these drugs for other neuropathic pain conditions, it is reasonable to try a tricyclic antidepressant (eg,
nortriptyline or desipramine) in patients suffering from CIPN after a discussion with the patients about the limited scientific evidence for CIPN, potential harms, benefits, cost, and patient preferences.
● Gabapentin, noting that the available data were limited regarding its efficacy for treating CIPN. However, the panel felt that this
agent is reasonable to try for selected patients with CIPN pain given that only a single negative randomized trial for this agent was
completed, the established efficacy of gabapentin and pregabalin for other forms of neuropathic pain, and the limited CIPN treatment options. Patients should be informed about the limited scientific evidence for CIPN, potential harms, benefits, and costs.
(continued on following page)
2
Chemotherapy-Induced Neuropathy in Survivors of Adult Cancers
THE BOTTOM LINE (CONTINUED)
●
A topical gel treatment containing baclofen (10 mg), amitriptyline HCL (40 mg), and ketamine (20 mg), noting that a single trial
indicated that this product did decrease CIPN symptoms. Given the available data, the panel felt that this agent is reasonable to try
for selected patients with CIPN pain. Patients should be informed about the limited scientific evidence for the treatment of CIPN,
potential harms, benefits, and costs.
Note: The guide for rating recommendations and strength of evidence is provided in Appendix Table A1 (online only).
continued, symptoms get progressively worse, without improvementbetweendoses.Whencumulativeoxaliplatin-inducedperipheral neuropathy develops, it is reported to be partially reversible in
approximately 80% of patients and completely resolves in approximately 40% at 6 to 8 months after cessation of treatment.7 However, signs and symptoms may continue to develop and progress
for an additional 2 to 6 months post-therapy, a phenomenon
known as “coasting.”7 Paclitaxel peripheral neuropathy also improves in most patients in the months after cessation of treatment,
but continues to be a prominent long-term problem in a subset
of patients.1,8,9
Some neuropathy-inducing chemotherapy agents, such as taxanes and oxaliplatin, cause an acute neuropathy syndrome in addition
to CIPN. Despite being a clinically distinct form and not necessarily
being peripheral in distribution, this chemotherapy-induced acute
neuropathy is addressed in this guideline. Oxaliplatin-induced acute
neurotoxicity is characterized by a unique spectrum of acute motor
and sensory symptoms occurring in the hours to days following
infusion.10-12 These symptoms include sensitivities to touching cold
items, discomfort swallowing cold liquids, throat discomfort, and
muscle cramps. Patients with more severe acute neuropathy appear to
also be at an increased risk of experiencing more severe chronic peripheral neuropathy.7,13 Paclitaxel-induced acute neuropathy consists
of an acute pain syndrome, which usually develops within 1 to 3 days
of paclitaxel administration and largely resolves within a week.14 This
pain complex had classically been labeled as a form of arthralgia/
myalgia, but there are no good data to support that this pain syndrome
arises from a pathologic process related to joints or muscles,14,15 and
detailed descriptive data support that this syndrome is likely a form of
acute neuropathy.14 This syndrome occurs in the majority of patients
and is more prominent in patients receiving higher individual paclitaxel doses.14,16
Many of the agents chosen to undergo evaluation for the treatment and prevention of CIPN were agents with a record of efficacy for
other common neuropathic pain conditions, such as painful diabetic
peripheral neuropathy and postherpetic neuralgia. This has been done
despite CIPN being relatively distinct from other forms of neuropathic
pain in many ways, including pathophysiology and symptomatology.17 The purpose of this systematic review and evidence-based
guideline is to systematically review RCTs reported in the literature,
compare outcomes among trials, and provide guidance on the effectiveness of prevention and treatment options for CIPN in adults with
a history of cancer.
www.jco.org
CLINICAL PRACTICE GUIDELINES
Practice guidelines are systematically developed statements that assist
practitioners and patients in making decisions about care. Attributes
of good guidelines include validity, reliability, reproducibility, clinical
applicability, flexibility, clarity, multidisciplinary process, review of
evidence, and documentation. Guidelines may be useful in producing
better care and decreasing cost. Specifically, utilization of clinical
guidelines may provide:
1. Improvements in outcomes
2. Improvements in clinical practice
3. A means for minimizing inappropriate practice variation
4. Decision support tools for practitioners
5. Points of reference for health professional orientation and
education
6. Criteria for self-evaluation
7. Indicators and criteria for external quality review
8. Assistance with reimbursement and coverage decisions
9. Criteria for use in credentialing decisions
10. Identification of areas where future research is needed
GUIDELINE QUESTION
What are the optimum prevention and treatment approaches in the
prevention/management of CIPNs in adult cancer survivors?
METHODS
Panel Composition
To address the clinical question, an Expert Panel with multidisciplinary
representation in medical oncology, community oncology, nursing, pain research, genetics, neurology, pharmacology, patient representation, and guideline methodology was convened. The Expert Panel was led by two Co-chairs
who had the primary responsibility for the development and timely completion of the guideline. The Expert Panel members are listed in Appendix Table
A2 (online only).
Guideline Development Process
The Expert Panel members, who met via teleconference and corresponded through e-mail:, were asked to contribute to the development of the
guideline, provide critical review, interpret evidence, and finalize the guideline recommendations based on consideration of the evidence. Members of
the Expert Panel were responsible for drafting the penultimate version of the
guideline, which was then circulated for external review. All ASCO guidelines
3
Hershman et al
are reviewed and approved by the ASCO Clinical Practice Guideline Committee before publication.
Guideline Disclaimer
The clinical practice guidelines and other guidance published herein are
provided by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Inc. (“ASCO”) to
assist providers in clinical decision making. The information therein should
not be relied on as being complete or accurate, nor should it be considered as
inclusive of all proper treatments or methods of care or as a statement of the
standard of care. With the rapid development of scientific knowledge, new
evidence may emerge between the time information is developed and when it
is published or read. The information is not continually updated and may not
reflect the most recent evidence. The information addresses only the topics
specifically identified therein and is not applicable to other interventions,
diseases, or stages of diseases. This information does not mandate any particular course of medical care. Further, the information is not intended to substitute for the independent professional judgment of the treating provider, as
the information does not account for individual variation among patients.
Recommendations reflect high, moderate or low confidence that the recommendation reflects the net effect of a given course of action. The use of words
like “must,” “must not,” “should,” and “should not” indicate that a course of
action is recommended or not recommended for either most or many patients, but there is latitude for the treating clinician to select other courses of
action in individual cases. In all cases, the selected course of action should be
considered by the treating provider in the context of treating the individual
patient. Use of the information is voluntary. ASCO provides this information
on an “as is” basis, and makes no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the
information. ASCO specifically disclaims any warranties of merchantability or
fitness for a particular use or purpose. ASCO assumes no responsibility for any
injury or damage to persons or property arising out of or related to any use of
this information or for any errors or omissions.
Guideline and Conflict of Interest
The Expert Panel was assembled in accordance with ASCO’s Conflict of
Interest Management Procedures for Clinical Practice Guidelines (Procedures; summarized at http://www.asco.org/guidelinescoi). Members of the
Panel completed ASCO’s disclosure form, which requires disclosure of financial and other interests that are relevant to the subject matter of the guideline,
including relationships with commercial entities that are reasonably likely to
experience direct regulatory or commercial impact as the result of promulgation of the guideline. Categories for disclosure include employment relationships, consulting arrangements, stock ownership, honoraria, research
funding, and expert testimony. In accordance with the Procedures, the majority of the members of the Panel did not disclose any such relationships.
Systematic Literature Review
ASCO guidelines are based on systematic reviews. A protocol for each
guideline defines the parameters for a targeted literature search including
relevant study designs, literature sources, types of reports, and prespecified
study selection criteria for literature identified.
Literature Search Strategy
Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to April week 2, 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013
week 16), and AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine; 1985 to April
2013) databases were searched for evidence reporting on outcomes of interest.
Before the systematic search of the medical literature, an environmental scan
was conducted for existing reviews regarding the management of CIPN. With
no recent guidelines identified, older reviews with contents related to the
clinical questions had their included studies cross-referenced to our literature
search. Reference lists from other published seminal papers were scanned for
additional citations. The literature search strategy and search results are available in Appendix Table A3 (online only) and Appendix Figure A1, (online
only), respectively.
Study Selection Criteria
Articles were selected for inclusion in the systematic review of the evidence if they
● focused on chemotherapy-induced neuropathy
● included cancer survivors
4
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
considered neuropathy as an important outcome of study
were randomized trials (phase II and III)
Articles were excluded from the systematic review if they
were phase I studies, other noncomparative studies, case reports,
editorial letters, or newspaper articles
only involved individuals under 18 years of age
were animal studies
were published in a language other than English
included less than 10 participants
focused on radiation therapy related neuropathy or stem-cell transplantation–related neuropathy
Outcomes of Interest
The outcomes of interest included incidence and severity of neuropathy,
neurophysiologic changes, symptom relief, patient-reported outcomes
(PROs), and quality of life.
Data Extraction
Literature search results were reviewed and deemed appropriate for
full-text review by an ASCO staff member in consultation with the CoChairs. Data were extracted in duplicate by two ASCO staff members.
Disagreements were resolved through discussion and consultation with the
Co-Chairs, if necessary.
Revision Dates
The Co-Chairs determine the need for guideline updates or revisions
based on periodic review and consideration of the literature. If new and
compelling data are identified, the Expert Panel or an Update Committee is
reconvened to discuss revisions to the document.
RESULTS
The literature search identified 1,252 potentially relevant citations. Of
these, 250 were examined in detail, and a total of 48 RCTs ultimately
met eligibility criteria and comprise the evidentiary basis for the guideline recommendations. A summary of the literature search results is
provided in a QUOROM diagram in Appendix Figure A1.
The identified trials spanned a 23-year period, from 1990 to 2013.
A total of 42 studies covered 19 different interventions for the prevention of CIPN. Treatment of established CIPN was considered in six
RCTs investigating six different agents.
STUDY QUALITY
Study quality was formally assessed for the 48 identified RCTs
(Table 1). Design aspects related to the individual study quality were
assessed by one reviewer for factors such as blinding, allocation concealment, placebo control, intention to treat, funding sources, and so
on. The risk of bias was assessed as low to moderate for most of the
identified trials, although five trials did suffer from various methodological shortcomings and were assessed to be at a high risk for bias.
Overall, the trials tended to be small, with many having insufficient
sample sizes to detect differences in outcomes. Dropout rates were also
substantial in several trials. Several other factors related to increased
potential for bias for the overall body of evidence were also recorded.
Five of the trials were reported as phase II studies,18-22 six were reported as pilot trials,23-28 six were terminated early11,19,29-32 and five
were open label.22,28,33-35 Primary outcomes varied across the trials,
and, in the majority of cases, studies were not directly comparable
because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used
at different time points. Appendix Table A4 (online only) provides
definitions of ratings for overall potential risk of bias.
Table 1. Quality Assessment
Study
Prevention
Lin 200623
Hershman 201357
Kemp 199637
Planting 199939
Lorusso 200338
Kanat 200336
Leong 200340
Hilpert 200518
Kautio 200941
Ishibashi 201030
Chay 201019
Grothey 2008Abst 32
Grothey 201111
Von Delius 200720
Gandara 199560
Loprinzi 201344
Loven 200924
Wang 200728
Bogliun 199625
Cascinu 199548
Cascinu 200247
Milla 200949
Schmidinger 200026
Smyth 199750
Leal 201351
Nishioka 201134
Cassidy 199831
Ghoreishi 201258
Van der Hoop 199053
Van Kooten 199227
Roberts 199754
Hovestadt 199255
Van Gerven 199456
Koeppen 200452
Argyriou 2006a35
Arrieta 201159
Davis 200521
Durand 201229
Kottschade 201145
Argyriou 2006b22
Pace 200333
Pace 201046
Treatment
Smith 201362
Rao 200764
Rao 200863
Hammack 200265
Kautio 200866
Barton 201167
Blinded
Validated
and
Reliable
Measures
Adequate
Follow-Up
Intentionto-Treat
Analysis
Insignificant
COIs
Overall
Potential
Risk of Biasⴱ
Adequate
Randomization
Concealed
Allocation
Sufficient
Sample
Size
?
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
公
?
?
?
?
公
?
公
?
公
公
公
?
公
公
?
公
公
—
?
公
公
?
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
?
?
?
?
公
?
公
?
公
?
?
公
?
公
公
公
公
?
—
公
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
公
—
公
?
公
公
?
—
?
公
公
—
公
?
?
公
—
?
?
?
?
公
—
—
?
?
公
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
公
?
公
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
公
?
公
?
?
?
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
公
公
公
?
?
公
公
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
公
公
公
公
—
—
公
公
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
—
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
公
?
公
公
公
公
?
?
公
?
公
?
?
?
公
?
公
?
公
公
?
?
—
?
?
?
公
?
公
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
—
?
公
?
公
?
?
公
—
?
?
公
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
公
—
?
公
公
?
?
?
公
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
公
?
公
?
?
?
?
?
?
公
公
?
公
公
公
?
?
Intermediate
Low
Low
Intermediate
Low
Intermediate
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Unknown†
Low
Low
Intermediate
Low
Intermediate
High
Intermediate
Low
Low
Intermediate
Intermediate
Low
Low
Low
High
Low
Low
Intermediate
Low
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Intermediate
Low
Intermediate
Low
High
High
High
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
?
?
?
公
?
公
公
公
公
—
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
公
?
?
?
?
公
公
公
?
?
公
?
?
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Low
Similar
Groups
NOTE. 公 indicates criteria were met; — indicates criteria were not met; ? indicates insufficient detail, not reported, and/or uncertain if the criteria were met.
Abbreviation: COI, conflict of interest.
ⴱ
Ratings are based on the estimation of whether the criterion was met and the extent of potential bias, not simply on reporting.
†Insufficient details provided in abstract to assess quality.
www.jco.org
5
Hershman et al
PREVENTION
Trial Results
A total of 42 RCTs were identified (Table 2) that studied the efficacy of
pharmacologic agents, including anticonvulsants, antidepressants, vitamins, minerals, and other chemoprotectants in the prevention
of CIPN.
Chemoprotectants. Six trials examined the efficacy of amifostine in the prevention of peripheral neuropathy associated with
taxane-based chemotherapy regimens.18,36-40 While there was evidence of the protective effect of amifostine against the incidence of
neurotoxicity18,36 and its severity,18,37,38 this benefit was limited
and not consistent across all studies. In addition, the limited benefit was counterbalanced by toxicities such as nausea, vomiting,
and light-headedness.
A phase II trial21 randomly assigned 117 patients with solid tumors receiving treatment with carboplatin/paclitaxel to low-dose (2
␮g/kg) or high-dose (4 ␮g/kg) recombinant human leukemia inhibitory factor (rhuLIF) or placebo. This study was convincingly negative,
with no differences between the groups in standardized composite
peripheral nerve electrophysiology (CPNE) scores, the primary end
point, or other secondary neurological testing variables considered.
A randomized placebo-controlled trial of the calcium-channel
antagonist, nimodipine, was initiated in 51 patients with ovarian cancer.31 As a result of an increase in nausea and vomiting and subsequent
poor compliance, the trial was prematurely discontinued. Despite
such early cessation, neurotoxicity scores were available for 40 patients, and results show an unexpected significant increase in scores for
patients on nimodipine versus placebo (P ⬍ .001). This trial, despite
its limitations, provides evidence that nimodipine can exacerbate neurotoxicity in patients receiving cisplatin-based regimens.
Anticonvulsants. Two trials assessed the effectiveness of anticonvulsants in the prevention of oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity. A trial
of carbamazepine was conducted in 36 patients with advanced colorectal cancer.20 No significant difference in neurotoxicity was seen
with carbamazepine compared with placebo, although this study was
reported to be underpowered. Another randomized, open-label, controlled trial assessed the efficacy of oxcarbazepine for prophylaxis
against oxaliplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy in 32 patients with
colon cancer.35 There was a 58% reduction in risk of CIPN in patients
receiving oxcarbazepine compared with controls (risk ratio ⫽ 0.42;
95% CI, 0.19 to 0.91). Despite the positive results, the efficacy of
oxcarbazepine in the prevention of CIPN remains uncertain. The trial
had several limitations, including a small sample size and lack of a
placebo control. Moreover, the clinical significance of the observed
neurophysiologic outcome differences is unclear.
Antidepressants. Two trials29,41 investigated the effects of antidepressants on peripheral neuropathy outcomes in patients with
cancer. Kautio et al41 found no difference in the amount of CIPN
between patients receiving amitriptyline and those receiving placebo. In contrast, in a relatively small trial, the antidepressant
venlafaxine was reported to significantly decrease oxaliplatinassociated acute neurotoxicity (31% v 5%, P ⫽ .03) and chronic
peripheral neuropathy (supported by significantly fewer patients
having grade 3 toxicity [0% v 33%, P ⫽ .03] in the venlafaxine
arm), when compared with placebo.29
Vitamins, minerals, dietary supplements. A number of placebocontrolled trials examined the effect of calcium and magnesium
6
(CaMg) infusions on oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy in patients
receiving infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin chemotherapy. This work was based on a nonrandomized trial that retrospectively compared its results to those from a historical population of
patients, reporting that CaMg infusions were associated with a marked
reduction of neuropathy42; this led to the subsequent relatively widespread adoption of this practice into routine clinical care. This led to
the development of placebo-controlled trials, but many of these trials
were terminated prematurely, based on an errant report from one
study that associated less antitumor activity in patients receiving
CaMg.43 Three of these prematurely closed trials did not show any
significant neuropathy benefit from CaMg19,30,32 while one reported a
significant decrease in the incidence of chronic, cumulative, grade ⱖ 2
sensory neuropathy, as measured by the National Cancer Institute
Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE; P ⫽
.038) and the oxaliplatin-specific sensory neurotoxicity scale (P ⫽
.018).11 Recently, a large double-blind randomized trial of 353 patients
with colon cancer provided strong evidence that CaMg was not able to
significantly decrease either the acute or persistent neuropathy associated with oxaliplatin.44
Four trials of varying methodological quality evaluated the neuroprotective effect of antioxidant supplementation with vitamin E in
patients treated with taxanes or platinum-based regimens.22,33,45,46
Although the first three published trials22,33,46 provided data to support that vitamin E could decrease neuropathy, two of these trials22,33
were relatively small, and both used an open-label control group
without a placebo. The third trial46 randomly allocated 108 patients
receiving cisplatin therapy to vitamin E or placebo. However, only 41
of these patients qualified for inclusion in the statistical analysis. Although this trial reported that the vitamin E group appeared to have
less neuropathy than those receiving placebo, only 17 patients randomly allocated to vitamin E were considered in the analysis. The
limited number of subjects included in the analysis is inadequate to
demonstrate vitamin E’s neuroprotective effects against cisplatininduced neuropathy. The largest, most recently published trial involved 207 patients and reported that vitamin E did not appear to
reduce the incidence of sensory neuropathy.45
Six small randomized trials25,26,47-50 evaluated the protective effects of glutathione (GSH) against platinum-based neurotoxicity. Five
of these trials25,47-50 reported a statistically significant reduction in
neurotoxicity, in one form or another, with administration of GSH
compared with placebo. Benefits included a reduction in incidence
and severity of neuropathy and improvements in nerve conduction
and QOL. In addition, a small, randomized, placebo-controlled pilot
study of N-acetylcysteine, an antioxidant known to increase serum
glutathione concentrations, was conducted in 14 patients with stage
III colon cancer receiving oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy.23
This study reported that grade 2 to 4 sensory neuropathy was lower in
the treatment arm (20%) compared with the placebo arm (73%) after
12 cycles of chemotherapy (P ⬍ .05). In contrast to the above data
suggesting that GSH is beneficial, a recent larger placebo-controlled
trial was unable to provide data supporting the benefit of GSH for the
prevention of neurotoxicity in 185 patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin therapy.51 As carboplatin is the least neurotoxic of the platinum
agents, it appears that most of the neuropathy from this regimen was
dictated by paclitaxel. Thus, the results of this study suggest that GSH
is not an effective agent in the prevention of taxane-induced CIPN. It
www.jco.org
Platinum
Platinum
Kemp 199637
Note: CIPN not
primary
outcome
Planting 199939
Note: CIPN not
primary
outcome
Amifostine (AM)
Carboplatin/paclitaxel
Taxane
Hershman 201357
Acetyl-L-carnitine
(ALC)
Lorusso 200338
Note: CIPN not
primary
outcome
Platinum
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Lin 200623
Authors and
Study Design
Acetylcysteine
(NAC)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Patients (No.)
187 total; AM:
93, PL: 94
73 total; AM:
36, PL: 37
242 total; AM:
122, PL: 120
409 total; ALC:
208, PL: 201
14 total; NAC:
5, PL: 9
Intervention Dose
NR
Grade 1 neuropathy
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification:
AM: 28.6%, PL:
25%; P ⫽ NR
NR
NR
Clinical grade 1
after 4 cycles,
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classificationⴱ:
NAC: 40%, PL:
77.8%; P ⫽ .158
910 mg/m2 given
as a 15-min
infusion,
administered
directly before
paclitaxel
administration
Amifostine was
reconstituted
with 9.5 mL
normal saline,
and the dose of
910 mg/m2 was
administered as
a 15-min
intravenous
infusion
740 mg/m2 over a
15-min infusion
directly before
cisplatin was
given
3,000 mg/day
1,200 mg orally
Incidence of
Neuropathy
Grade 3-4 neurotoxicity
assessed by NCICTC classification:
AM: 3.7% (95% CI,
2.1 to 5.3) PL: 7.2%
(95% CI, 5.0 to 9.4)
P ⫽ .021
NR
Severity of neuropathy
after 6 cycles
grade 1: AM: 29%,
PL: 31%; grade 2:
AM: 29%, PL: 35%;
grade 3: AM: 9%,
PL: 15%; P ⫽ .029
Grade 2-4 after 8
cycles assessed by
NCI-CTC
classificationⴱ: NAC:
0%, PL: 56%;
P ⬍ .05
Grade 2-4 after 12
cycles assessed by
NCI-CTC
classificationⴱ: NAC:
20%, PL: 89%;
P ⬍ .05
FACT-NTX score‡ 12wk (mean)ⴱ: ALC:
35.4, PL: 36.4;
P ⫽ .17
FACT-NTX score‡ 24
wk (mean)†: ALC:
35.3, PL: 37.5;
P ⫽ .01 NR
Severity of Neuropathy
Table 2. Randomized Controlled Trials Regarding the Prevention of CIPN
Serial vibration
perception
thresholds (VPT)
showed a diminished
incidence of
subclinical
neurotoxicity in the
amifostine arm
(P ⫽ .03)
NR
FACT-TOI score‡ 12-wk
(mean)†: ALC: 91.9,
PL: 92.5; P ⫽ .92
FACT-TOI score‡ 24 wk
(mean)†: ALC: 95.1,
PL: 98.9; P ⫽ .03
FACT-Fatigue score‡ 12
wk (mean)†: ALC:
36.4, PL: 35.5; P ⫽ .2
FACT-Fatigue score‡ 24
wk (mean)†: ALC:
39.3, PL: 40.3;
P ⫽ .51
NR
No significant changes
in mean latency,
sensory amplitude
potentials, or
conduction velocity
of sural nerves in
patients receiving
NAC†
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
NR
NR
NR
NR
QOL, Symptom Relief,
and/or Other PatientReported Outcomes
7
8
Amitriptyline
(AMI)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Vinca alcaloids,
platinum or
Taxanes
Leong 200340
Note: CIPN not
primary
outcome
Hilpert 200518
Kautio 200941
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Kanat 200336
Note: CIPN not
primary
outcome
Authors and
Study Design
Patients (No.)
114 total; AM:
58, PL: 56
72 total; AM:
37, PL: 34
60 total; AM:
30, PL: 30
38 total; AM:
19, PL: 19
Intervention Dose
No significant
difference in
appearance or
progression of
neuropathic
symptoms based
on diary data
between
groupsⴱ.
CTCAE scores
were better with
AM (P ⫽ .01)
Grade 2-3
neuropathy
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification:
AM: 24%, PL:
37%; P ⫽ NR
Grade 1-2
paresthesia
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification:
AM: 42.1%, PL:
94.7%; P ⫽ .018
25 mg/d up to
maximum of 100
mg/d until end of
neurotoxic
chemotherapy
740 mg/m2 over a
15-min infusion
30 mins prior to
chemo
910 mg/m2 given
as a 15-min
infusion,
administered
within 30 min
preceding
carboplatin
infusion
740 mg/m2 over a
15-min infusion
30 mins before
paclitaxel and 30
mins before to
carboplatin
Incidence of
Neuropathy
NCI-CTC grading on
visits 4†:
Any sensory: AMI:
61%, PL: 76%;
P ⫽ NS
Grade 3 motor AMI:
26%, PL: 22%;
P ⫽ NS
NR
NR
Table 2. Randomized Controlled Trials Regarding the Prevention of CIPN (continued)
Mean SNAP amplitudes
were comparable
after 6 cycles of
chemotherapy, and
there was no
significant decline in
mean amps for either
group after treatment
Overall, the 72
neurophysiologic
parameters before
and after treatment
showed worsening in
both treatment
groups, but there
was no statistical
difference between
groups
Maximum VPT handsⴱ:
AM: 3.18 ␮m (after 5
cycles), PL: 3.83 ␮m
(after 6 cycles);
P ⫽ .0114 (by
multivariable analysis)
Maximum VPT feetⴱ:
cycles) PL: 11.88 ␮m
(after 3 mo follow
up) P ⫽ .0015 (by
Maximum VDT handsⴱ:
(at 3 mo follow- up)
P ⫽ .0038 (by
Maximum VDT feetⴱ:
(after 6 cycles);
P ⫽ .0012 (by
NR
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
EORTC-C30†: no
significant difference
between groups
EORTC-QLQ-C-30 Global
health status score
trend over treatment
period†: AM:
P ⫽ .0026; PL:
P ⫽ .4478
EORTC-QLQ-C-30 Global
health status score
trend over follow up
period†: AM:
P ⫽ .0098 PL:
P ⫽ .3740
NR
NR
Hershman et al
www.jco.org
Calcium and
magnesium
(Ca/Mg)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Oxaliplatin
Oxaliplatin
Grothey 201111
Grothey 200832
Abstract
Oxaliplatin
Oxaliplatin
Chay 2010§19
Loprinzi 201344
Oxaliplatin
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Ishibashi 201030
Authors and
Study Design
Patients (No.)
353 total;
CaMg/CaMg:
118, CaMg/
PL: 116, PL/
PL: 119
139 total;
CaMg: NR,
PL: NR
27 total enrolled
(8 did not
complete
study as a
result of
study
termination);
CaMg: 9, PL:
10
102 total;
CaMg: 50,
PL: 52
33 total; Ca/Mg:
17, PL: 16
Intervention Dose
NR
NR
Incidence of ⱖ
grade 2 sensory
neurotoxicity by
NCI CTCAE
classificationⴱ:
CaMg: 22%, PL:
41%; P ⫽ .038
By OSS†: CaMg:
28%, PL: 51%;
P ⫽ .018
NR
DEB-NTS and NCICTC criteria for ⱖ
grade 1ⴱ: Ca/Mg:
100%, PL: 94%;
P ⫽ .48
1 g of each agent
in 100 mL D5W
over 30 min,
immediately
before and after
each dose of
oxaliplatin OR
Ca-gluconate 1g,
Mg-sulfate 1g,
before and PL
after oxaliplatin
Ca-gluconate 1 g,
Mg-sulfate 1 g,
pre and post
oxaliplatin
Calcium gluconate
1g and 15%
magnesium
sulfate 1 g
diluted into 100
mL of saline
infused before
and after
chemotherapy
Intravenous calcium
gluconate plus
magnesium
sulfate, 1 g of
each agent in
100 mL D5W
over 30 min,
immediately
before and after
each dose of
oxaliplatin
Calcium gluconate
850 mg and
magnesium
sulfate 720 mg
Incidence of
Neuropathy
No difference in time
to treatment
discontinuation with
CaMg versus PLⴱ:
HR ⫽ 1.32 (95% CI,
0.93 to 1.86);
P ⫽ .1179
CTCAE grade ⱖ 2
neurotoxicity†:
CaMg/CaMg: 43%,
CaMg/PL: 46%, PL/
PL: 45%; no
significant
difference EORTC
CIPN-20 sensoryⴱ,
motor†, or
autonomic scales†:
no significant
difference
DEB-NTS criteria for ⱖ
grades 2 and 3ⴱ:
Ca/Mg grade 2:
71%, PL grade 2:
56%; P ⫽ .48
Ca/Mg grade 3: 6% PL
grade 3: 0% P ⬎ .99
NCI-CTC Criteria for ⱖ
grade 2ⴱ: Ca/Mg:
6% PL: 6%; P ⬎ .99
Grade 1-2 numbness
CaMg: 44%, PL:
70%; P ⫽ NR
Grade 3 OSS or CTC
numbness: CaMg:
11%, PL: 0%;
P ⫽ .09
NR
NR
NR
NR
Objective neuropathy
score at end of
treatment assessed
by NCS: CaMg: 6,
PL: 0; P ⫽ .02
(note: higher scores ⫽
worse neuropathy)
NR
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
Patient-reported acute
neuropathy†: no
in sensitivities to
touching cold,
discomfort
swallowing cold
liquids, or muscle
cramps but a
decrease of throat
discomfort with
CaMg was reported
(P ⬍ .036)
Sensitivities to touching
cold items,
discomfort
swallowing cold
liquids, or throat
discomfort†
No difference between
CaMg and placebo
arms
Muscle cramps at cycle
1 (AUC)†: CaMg:
8 ⫾ 20, PL: 46 ⫾ 101;
P ⫽ .01
NR
Acute subjective
neuropathy: CaMg:
77%, PL: 86%;
P ⫽ .6
NR
9
10
Oxaliplatin
Platinum
Paclitaxel
Oxaliplatin
Gandara 199560
Note:
neuropathy
was not the
only focus of
study
Loven 200924
Wang 2007§28
Diethyldithiocarbamate
(DDTC)
Glutamate/
Glutamine
(Gluta)
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Von Delius
200720
Authors and
Study Design
Carbamazepine
(Carb)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Patients (No.)
86 total; Gluta:
42, PL: 44
43 total; Gluta:
23, PL: 20
214 total;
DDTC: 106,
PL: 108
36 total; Carb:
19 PL: 17
Intervention Dose
Grade 1-2 sensory
neuropathy after
2 cycles
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification::
Gluta: 16.7%,
PL: 38.6%;
P ⫽ .04
Grade 1-2 sensory
neuropathy after
4 cycles
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification:
Gluta: 26.2%,
PL: 36.4%;
P ⫽ .05
NR
PNP numbness
scores (worst
grade, any
cycle)† : Carb:
5.3%, PL:
11.8%; P ⫽ .2
Clinical peripheral
neuropathy:
DDTC: 13%, PL:
12%; P ⫽ NS
15g 2⫻/d for 7 d
every 2 wk
starting on the
day of
chemotherapy
500 mg, 3⫻ per
day
200 mg and
stepwise elevated
by 200 mg until
target plasma
levels reached: 4-6
mg/L
1.6 g/m2 over 4 h
starting 15 min
before cisplatin
administration
Incidence of
Neuropathy
Severity of signs and
symptoms rank at a
severity score of 2
or 3ⴱ: Reduced
touch perception:
Gluta: 0%, PL:
5.5%; P ⫽ .47
Reduced pain
perception: Gluta:
0%, PL: 5.5%;
P ⫽ .47
Impaired deep
sensation: Gluta:
10%, PL: 22.2%;
P ⫽ .395
Impaired tendon
reflexes: Gluta: 20%
PL: 16.7% P ⫽ 1.0
NR
NR
Grade 3-4 according to
Levi’s scaleⴱ: Carb:
21%, PL: 35%;
P ⫽ .72
Abnormal electrophysiological exam:
Gluta: 21.4%, PL:
25.0%; P ⫽ .68
Neuropathy as
measured by electrodiagnostic
abnormalities: Gluta:
30.4%, PL: 30%
NR
NR
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
Interference with
activities of daily
living: Gluta: 16.7%,
PL: 40.9%; P ⫽ .02
Presence of acute, coldinduced neurotoxicity:
Gluta: 33.3%, PL:
56.8%; P ⫽ .03
Patients on active
treatment had
significantly more
toxicity and were
more likely to stop
chemotherapy due to
toxicity (9% v 23%,
P ⫽ .08) and have a
lower cumulative
cisplatin doses
(P ⬍ .001)
NR
NR
Hershman et al
www.jco.org
Glutathione
(GSH)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Oxaliplatin
Cascinu 200247
Paclitaxel/carboplatin
Cisplatin
Cascinu 199548
Leal 201351
Cisplatin
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Bogliun 1996§25
Authors and
Study Design
Patients (No.)
185 total; GSH:
94, PL: 91
52 total GSH:
26 PL: 26
50 total; GSH:
25 PL: 25,
54 total; GSH:
27, PL: 27
Intervention Dose
Neurotoxicity
assessed by
WHO criteriaⴱ:
After 9 wk of
treatment: GSH:
0%, PL: 66%
(95% CI, 49% to
83%); P ⬍ .001
After 15 wk of
treatment: GSH:
17% (95% CI,
2% to 32%), PL:
88% (95% CI,
76% to 100%);
P ⬍ .001
Grade 1-2
neuropathy after
4 cycles
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification†:
GSH:27% (95%
CI, 9.8-44%) PL:
42% (95% CI,
23-61%), P ⫽ NR
Any neuropathy
after 8 cycles
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification:†:
GSH: 43% (95%
CI, 22 to 64%),
PL: 79% (95%
CI, 60 to 80%);
P ⫽ .04
PN assessed by
EORTC- QLQCIPN20ⴱ: P ⫽ .21
NR
1.5g/m2 GSH IV
over 15 min
immediately
before
chemotherapy
administration
1500 mg/m2 GSH
in 100 mL of
saline over a 15min period
immediately
before each
oxaliplatin
administration
1500 mg/m2 GSH
in 100 mL of
immediately
before each
CDDP
administration
and 600 mg by
intramuscular
injection on days
2 to 5
2.5g over 15 min,
immediately
before cisplatin
Incidence of
Neuropathy
CTCAE grade ⱖ 2
neurotoxicity†: GSH:
38%, PL: 33%
P ⫽ .449
Grade 2-4 NCI CTC
clinical
neurotoxicityⴱ: GSH:
9.5% (95% CI, 0 to
22%), PL: 58%
(95% CI, 35 to
80%) P ⫽ .003
Grade 3-4
neurotoxicity†: GSH:
0%, PL: 26%;
P ⫽ .01
NR
Change of ⬎12 points
in NDS: GSH:
26.3%, PL: 50%;
RR储: 0.53 (95% CI,
0.21 to 1.29);
P ⫽ .16
NR
Neurophysiologic
evaluation after 8
cycles†: GSH: no
changes in mean
latency and sensory
amplitude potentials
of the sural nerves
PL: statistically
significant change in
mean latency
(P ⫽ .03) and sensory
amplitude (P ⫽ .05)
potentials of the
sural nerves
Decrease in SNAP
amplitude: GSH:
12%–35%, PL:
58%–68%
(depending on dose
of CDDP); RR储: 0.75
(95% CI, 0.56 to
0.99); P ⫽ .043
Mean latency and
SAPs†: GSH: No
changes of the
median, ulnar, and
sural nerves PL:
mean SAPs were
significantly affected
at the 9th (P ⱕ .003)
and 15th week (P ⱕ
.003), and latency at
the 15th week (P ⱕ
.01)
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
Acute paclitaxel
neuropathy†: no
significant advantage
for glutathione
(P ⫽ .30 for every 3
wk subset; P ⫽ .002
for the weekly
subset, in favor of
placebo arm)
NR
NR
NR
11
12
Cisplatin
Oxaliplatin
Cisplatin
Smyth 1997§50
Nishioka 201134
Cassidy 199831
Goshajinkigan
(GJG) Kampo
medicine
Nimodipine (Nim)
51 total (50 took
study drug)
Nim: 24, PL:
26
45 total; GJG:
22, unblinded
control group:
23
151 total GSH:
74 PL: 77
20 total; GSH:
11, PL: 9
Cisplatin
Milla 2009§
Schmidinger
2000§26
Patients (No.)
27 total; GSH:
14, PL: 13
49
Authors and
Study Design
Grade 3 assessed
by DEB-NTCⴱ
after 10 courses:
GJG: 0%,
unblinded control
group: 12%;
P ⬍ .01
After 20 courses:
GJG: 33%,
unblinded control
group: 75%;
P ⬍ .01
NR
Neurosensory
toxicity assessed
by NCI-CTC
classification:
GSH: 39%, PL:
49%; P ⫽ .22
End of treatment
neuropathy
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classification:
GSH: grade 1:
50%, grade 2:
50%, grade 3: 0,
grade 4: 0; PL:
grade 1: 26%,
grade 2: 69%,
grade 3: 31%,
grade 4: 0;
P ⫽ .0037
WHO neurotoxicity
measure: No
change in the
GSH or PL group
90 mg qds, but
dose reduction in
some patients
occurred in an
attempt to
salvage poor
compliance
7.5 g/d divided into
2-3 doses
administered
during
chemotherapy
3 g/m2 GSH
infused over 20
min immediately
before 100 mg/
m2 cisplatin
every 3 weeks
for six courses
5 g immediately
before cisplatin
1,500 mg/m GSH
in 100 mL of
physiological
immediately
before each
oxaliplatin
administration
2
Intervention Dose
Incidence of
Neuropathy
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Oxaliplatin
Pharmacologic
Agent
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
NR
NR
No significant
difference in nerve
conduction studies
between the GSH
and PL groups
NR
NR
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
Neurotoxicity Score at
week 27 as measured
by author-designed
questionnaireⴱ: Nim:
10.4 ⫾ 1.0, PL:
6.4 ⫾ 0.8; P ⬍ .001
Rotterdam Symptom
Checklist: Peripheral
neurotoxicity was
significantly improved
in the GSH group
compared to the PL
group (P ⬍ .05).
Proportion of patients
receiving a full 6
courses at any dose:
GSH: 58%, PL: 39%;
P ⫽ .04
NR
NR
NR
Hershman et al
www.jco.org
Cisplatin
Roberts 199754
196 total; Org 2
mg: 63, Org
4 mg: 66, PL:
67
55 total Org low
0.25 mg: 17
Org high 1
mg: 16 PL:
22
Cisplatin
Van der Hoop
199053
Org 2766
Patients (No.)
57 total;
Omega: 30,
PL: 27
Intervention Dose
NR
NR
A significant
difference in PN
incidence
assessed by
rTNSP OR ⫽ 0.3
(95% CI,0.10 to
0.88); P ⫽ .029
Two subcutaneous
injections of
either a 2-mg or
4-mg dose
Two subcutaneous
injections of
either a 0.25 mg
or 1 mg dose
640 mg (54% DHA,
10% EPA) 3⫻/d
Incidence of
Neuropathy
NR
Borderline significant
difference in
severity of PN
assessed by rTNSP
B ⫽ ⫺1.02 (95% CI,
⫺2.06 to 0.02);
P ⫽ .054
Ordinal regression
analysis was used
to compare the
severity
NR
Paclitaxel
Ghoreishi 201258
Authors and
Study Design
Omega 3
Pharmacologic
Agent
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Threshold of vibration
perception as
measured with
vibrameter after 4
cyclesⴱ: PL:
1.61 ⫾ 0.43, low:
0.56 ⫾ 0.11 high:
0.50 ⫾ 0.06; P ⬍
.005 for high dose
compared with
placebo
Threshold of vibration
perception as
measured with
vibrameter after 6
cycles†: PL:
5.87 ⫾ 1.97 low:
2.31 ⫾ 0.75 high:
0.88 ⫾ 0.17; P ⬍
.005 for high dose
compared with
placebo
VPTⴱ index finger
(lower scores mean
less neuropathy): 2
mg: 2.81 4 mg: 3.27
PL: 2.56; P ⫽ NS
VPT great toe (lower
scores mean less
neuropathy): 2 mg:
6.65, 4 mg: 8.18, PL:
6.09; P ⫽ NS
Sural a-SAP difference
pre and post
chemotherapy†:
Omega: ⫹0.06 PL:
⫺3.96 P ⫽ .015
Other differences of
NCS parameters did
not reach statistical
significance†
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
NR
Patient reported
paresthesias after 4
courses†: PL: 38%
low: 8% high: 8%;
P ⫽ .16
After 6 courses†: PL:
67%, low: 33%, high:
29%; P ⫽ NR
Sum scores for patientreported signs and
symptoms after 4
courses†: PL: 4.85,
low: 3.69, high: 3.23;
P ⫽ .03
Sum scores for patient
reported signs and
symptoms after 6
courses†: PL: 7.42,
low: 4.33, high: 3.57;
P ⫽ .03
NR
13
Pharmacologic
Agent
14
55 randomized,
42 evaluable;
Org: 19, PL:
23
28 total; Org:
13, PL: 15
Cisplatin
Vinca alkaloids
Van Gerven
199456
van Kooten
1992§27
Patients (No.)
150 total; Org:
75, PL: 75
Vinca alkaloid
Intervention Dose
NR
NR
NR
Subcutaneous
injections of 2 mg
Org 2766 to
patients with nonHodgkin
lymphoma on
days 1 and 10 of
each chemotherapy course
and to patients
with Hodgkin
disease on days 1
and 8 of each
chemotherapy
course
2 mg given as
subcutaneous
injection 1-3 h
before and after
administration of
VCR. Four weeks
after discontinuation of VCR
treatment (plus or
minus 1 wk) the
final two injections
were given at
least 2-h apart
2 mg/d
subcutaneously
injected for 5
consecutive days
Incidence of
Neuropathy
NR
NR
NR
Koeppen 200452
Authors and
Study Design
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Vibratory threshold
slopesⴱ (changes
from baseline as
opposed to a
comparison to each
other): Org: P ⫽ .06
PL: P ⬍ .001
Abnormal VPT at 3-5
mo: Org: 50%, PL:
75%, RR储 ⫽ 0.67
(95% CI, 0.31 to
1.43); P ⫽ .30
Total number of
patients receiving
sensory disturbances
(impaired touch and
pain perception in
hands and/or feet
and/or abnormal
position sense in the
hallux muscle) Org:
2, PL: 60; P ⬍ .05
NR
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
Total number of sensory
complaints reported
including pain,
paresthesias, and
numbness during
three follow-up visits:
Org: 28, PL: 61;
P ⫽ NS
Total number of
complains of
numbness alone: Org:
9 PL: 29 P ⬍ .05
NR
Neuropathy-free
intervalⴱ: no
between the two
groups (P ⬎ .14)
Hershman et al
www.jco.org
Davis 200521
Arrieta2011§59
Retinoic acid (RA)
rhuLIF
Argyriou2006a35
Hovestadt
1992§¶55
Authors and
Study Design
Oxycarbazepine
(OXC)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Patients (No.)
117 total; rhuLIF
low: 36,
rhuLIF high:
39, PL: 42
92 total; RA: 45,
PL: 47
Cisplatin ⫹ paclitaxel
Paclitaxel ⫹
Carboplatin
40 total; OXC:
20, unblinded
control group:
20
18 total; Org
low: 5, Org
high: 6, PL: 7
Oxaliplatin
Cisplatin
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Intervention Dose
Neuropathy grade
ⱖ 2, assessed
by NCI criteria:
RA: 56% (95%
CI, 39% to
67%), PL: 75%
(95% CI, 64% to
86%); P ⫽ .056
NR
Incidence assessed
by NSS: OXC:
31.2%,
unblinded control
group: 75%;
P ⫽ .033 (EFF
population)
P ⫽ .050 (ITT
population)
RR ⫽ 0.42 (95%
CI, 0.19 to 0.91)
NR
rhuLIF at two
doses of either 2
␮g/kg/d or 4 ␮g/
kg/d
20 md/m2/d
150 mg/d initially
then doubled on
a weekly basis
up to maximum
target dose of
600 mg two
times a day
(1200 mg/d)
Low (0.25 mg/m2)
or high (1 mg/
m2) dose
subcutaneously
injected before
the start of
cisplating and
24 h later
Incidence of
Neuropathy
Change in CPNE score
from BL to after 4
cyclesⴱ: No
significant
difference between
groups
NR
Severity as measured
by mean TNS: OXC:
4.1 ⫾ 6.5 (range
0-17), unblinded
control group:
11.2 ⫾ 9.1 (range
0-28); P ⫽ .016
NR
Change in the velocity
of median nerve
from BL to after 4
cycles†: rhuLIF: 1.2
m/s worse
conduction, PL: 2.7
m/s better
conduction; P ⫽ NS
Between-group
comparisons (V1 v
V4 values) of the
mean a-SAP
changes:
S.Per/al a-SAP: P ⫽ .03
Sural a-SAP:
P ⫽ .047
The following were
statistically
non-significant: Ulnar
a-SAP; Ulnar
a-CMAP; Ulnar MCV;
Per/al a-CMAP; Per/al
MCV
Differences in
amplitude damage at
baseline and posttreatment: RA: 28.3s,
PL: 38.4s; P ⫽ .05
Mean VPT at 1 mo: Org
low: 2.9, Org high:
1.1, PL: 3.7
Mean VPT at 4-12 mo:
Org low: 3.6, Org
high: 2.0, PL: 4.8
Note: No formal test for
significance
conducted
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
QLQ-30 and CIPNS-32†:
rhuLIF patients
reported significantly
greater improvements
in global health status
and significant
reductions in level of
fatigue compared
with placebo patients
NR
Mean sum scores for
patient reported
neurological signs and
symptoms at 1 mo:
Org low: 6.3, Org
high: 0.0, PL: 6.3
Mean sum scores for
patient reported
neurological signs and
symptoms at 4-12
mo: Org low: 4.5, Org
high: 3.5, PL: 5.7
Note: No formal test for
significance
conducted
Mean neuropathy
disability score: OXC:
5.1 ⫾ 8.2, unblinded
control group:
20.0 ⫾ 23.1; P ⫽ .021
Mean Neuropathy
Symptom Score:
OXC: 0.6 ⫾ 0.9,
unblinded control
group: 1.5 ⫾ 1.3;
P ⫽ .025
15
16
Paclitaxel
Cisplatin
Argyriou, 200622
Pace 2003§33
47 total but only
27 reported;
Vit E: 13,
unblinded
control group:
14
30 total; Vit E:
14, unblinded
control group:
16
207 total; Vit
E:103, PL:
104
Taxane or platinum
Kottschade
201145
Vitamin E
Patients (No.)
48 total Ven: 24
PL: 24
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Oxaliplatin
Durand 201229
Authors and
Study Design
Venlafaxine
Pharmacologic
Agent
Intervention Dose
Vit E: 30.7%,
unblinded control
group: 85.7%; P
⬍ .01
RR ⫽ 0.36 (95% CI,
0.15 to 0.83) P
⬍ .001
Grade 2⫹ sensory
neuropathy
assessed by
NCI-CTC
classificationⴱ:
Vit E: 34% (95%
CI, 25.0% to
44.8%), PL: 29%
(95% CI, 20.1%
to 39.4%) ;
P ⫽ .43
Median time to
onset†: Vit E: 58
d (95% CI, 43 to
97 d), PL: 69 d
(95% CI, 49 to
105 d); P ⫽ .58
Incidence assessed
by NSSⴱ: Vit E:
21.4%,
unblinded control
group: 68.5%;
P ⫽ .026 (EFF
population) Vit E:
31.3%,
unblinded control
group: 68.4%;
P ⫽ .030 (ITT
population)
RR ⫽ 2.51 (95%
CI, 1.16 to 5.47)
NR
300 mg/d before
chemotherapy
and sustained for
3 mo after the
cessation of
cisplatin
treatment
300 mg two times
per day during
chemotherapy
and up to 3 mo
after
300 mg two times
per day for 1 mo
beyond
completion of
chemotherapy
50 mg 1 h prior
oxaliplatin and
venlafaxine
extended release
37.5 mg two
times a day from
day 2 to 11
Incidence of
Neuropathy
by neurotoxicity
score: Vit E:
2.1 ⫾ 2.1, unblinded
control group:
4.7 ⫾ 2.9; P ⬍ .01
Mean PNP score†: Vit
E: 4.99 ⫾ 1.33,
unblinded control
group:
10.47 ⫾ 10.62;
P ⫽ .023
NPSI - pins and
needles†:
venlafaxine: ⫺1.39,
PL: ⫺0.26; P ⬍ .001
NPSI - pain triggered
by cold†:
venlafaxine: ⫺0.59,
PL: ⫺0.05; P ⫽ .06
Median time to
resolution to ⱕ
grade 1 sensory
neuropathy†: Vit E:
36 d (95% CI, 28 to
44 d), PL: could not
be established
because only 6 of
27 patients had
resolution of ⱖ
grade 2 sensory
neuropathy
Changes in mean
electrophysiological
scores from BL to
subsequent scores
between groups†:
Ulnar a-SAP:
P ⫽ .021; S. Per/al
a-SAP: P ⫽ .017;
Sural a-SAP:
P ⫽ .046
The following were
statistically
nonsignificant: Ulnar
a-CMAP, Ulnar MCV,
Per/al a-CMAP, Per/al
MCV
Mean Sural SCV
change from
baseline: Vit E: ⫺1.6,
unblinded control
group: ⫺3.5; P ⬍ .01
Median amplitude
change from
unblinded control
group: ⫺6.3; P ⬍ .01
NR
NR
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
NR
NR
Full relief of acute
NeurotoxicityP:
venlafaxine: 31.3%
PL: 5.3% P ⫽ .03
Functional impairment in
ADL†: venlafaxine:
⫺0.67, PL: ⫹0.69;
P ⬍ .001
NR
Hershman et al
www.jco.org
Pace 2010§46
Authors and
Study Design
Cisplatin
Patients (No.)
108 total; Vit E:
54, PL: 54
Intervention Dose
400 mg/d before
chemotherapy
and sustained for
3 mo after the
cessation of
cisplatin
treatment
Neurotoxicity
incidence higher
than grade 3 of
TNS: Vit E:
5.9%, PL:
41.7%; P ⬍ .01;
RR ⫽ 0.14 (95%
CI, 0.02 to 1.00),
P ⬍ .05
Incidence of
Neuropathy
by neurotoxicity
score (TNS): Vit E:
1.4 ⫾ 1.5, PL:
4.1 ⫾ 4.5; P ⬍ .01
Mean Sural amplitude
change from
PL: ⫺5.5
Median amplitude
change from
baseline: Vit E: ⫹0.1,
PL: ⫺2.8
Neurophysiologic or
Instrumental
Investigations
NR
Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; AUC, area under the curve; CIPNS, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy survey; DEB-NTS, Debiopharm Neurotoxicity Scale; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group; EORTC QLQ, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire FACT/GOG-Ntx, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale/Gynecologic Oncology
Group- Neurotoxicity scale; FACT-TOI, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale - Taxane Trial Outcome Index; GOG, Gynecologic Oncology Group; NCI-CTC, National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity
Criteria; NA, not applicable; NCS, nerve conduction studies; NDS, Neurological Disability Score; NR, not reported; NS, not significant; NSS, Neurological Symptom Score; OSS, oxaliplatin-specific scale; PL,
placebo; PN, peripheral neuropathy; PNP, peripheral neuropathy score; QLQ-C30, European Organization for the Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-30 items; QOL, quality of life; RR, risk
ratio; rTNT, reduced Total Neuropathy score; SCV, sensory conduction velocity; SNAP, sensory nerve action potentials; SWOG, South West Oncology Group; TNS, Total Neuropathy Score; VPT, vibration
perception threshold.
ⴱ
Primary end point of study.
†Secondary end point of study.
‡Higher scores reflect less neurotoxicity, better functional status, and less fatigue, respectively.
§Primary or secondary end points not reported.
储Risk ratio calculated and reported in Albers et al (2011).
¶This is a follow-up study to Van der Hoop 1990, reporting on a subset of longer-term follow-up patients.
Pharmacologic
Agent
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
17
Hershman et al
can be argued that the effectiveness of GSH for decreasing platinumassociated neurotoxicity should be further evaluated in a large, methodologically rigorous trial.
The efficacy of the ACTH4-9 analog Org 2766 for the prevention
of cisplatin- and vincristine-based neuropathy was assessed in six
placebo-controlled trials.27,52-56 Patients in these trials were randomly
allocated to subcutaneous injections of Org 2766 at doses that ranged
from 0.25 to 4.0 mg/kg. The first of these trials,53 involving 55 patients
in a three-arm study (low dose, higher dose, and placebo), reported a
substantial reduction in neuropathy associated with this agent. A
subsequent report,55 involving 18 of the same patients with longer
follow-up, reported additional benefit from Org 2766. Another report56 which involved multiple authors in common with the previous
two reports, again with a relatively small number of patients (42
evaluable patients among two arms), also supported that this agent
was helpful for decreasing cisplatin-associated neuropathy. A subsequent Dutch trial, involving 28 patients receiving vincristine, also
reported positive results. In contrast to these multiple small trials, two
larger well-conducted trials52,54 were unable to provide any suggestion
that this agent decreased CIPN; in fact, the neuropathy was numerically worse with the study agent in one of the trials.54
Hershman et al compared acetyl-L-carnitine (ALC) at a dose of
3,000 mg per day with placebo in 409 women with breast cancer
undergoing adjuvant taxane-based chemotherapy. Unexpectedly and
alarmingly, a statistically significant increase in CIPN was reported in
patients receiving ALC (P ⫽ .01) at 24 weeks, although no difference
was observed at 12 weeks, the primary outcome of the trial. This is the
first trial to support that a nutritional supplement increased CIPN.57
Five remaining trials considered the prophylactic effect of nutritional supplements on CIPN. One pilot trial,24 investigating longterm supplementation with glutamate for the prevention of CIPN in
43 women with ovarian cancer, failed to show a benefit in patients
receiving the supplement compared with placebo controls. Another
pilot study28 investigating the efficacy of glutamine found that oral
glutamine significantly reduced the incidence and severity of CIPN in
86 patients receiving oxaliplatin. However, this study was neither
blinded nor placebo controlled, thus these findings should be interpreted with caution. A trial of 57 patients with breast cancer examined
the efficacy of omega-3 fatty acids for the prevention of paclitaxelinduced neurotoxicity,58 reporting a significant difference in CIPN
incidence favoring patients in the omega-3 fatty acids arm over those
in the placebo arm (odds ratio ⫽ 0.3; 95% CI, 0.10 to 0.88, P ⫽ .029).
This promising-appearing result has not been replicated. A placebocontrolled trial59 evaluating all-trans retinoic acid (20 mg/m2/d) in 95
patients with non–small-cell lung cancer found a trend toward a lower
rate of ⱖ grade 2 neuropathy (P ⫽ .056) and axonal degeneration, as
demonstrated by nerve conduction velocity (P ⫽ .05) in the all-trans
retinoic acid group. In 2011, Nishioka et al34 reported on the efficacy
of the Kampo medicine, goshajinkigan (GJG), for peripheral neuropathy associated with oxaliplatin therapy. Among 45 patients with
colorectal cancer randomized to oral GJG or an unblinded control
arm, the incidence of grade 3 peripheral neuropathy in the GJG group
was significantly lower than in the control group (P ⬍ .01). No other
reports regarding GJG are available. In the final trial, Gandara et al60
failed to demonstrate a significant chemoprotective effect against
cisplatin-induced toxicities with diethyldithiocarbamate (DDTC) in
221 patients; in addition this therapy was associated with increased
treatment toxicities and lower levels of cisplatin administration.
18
Clinical Interpretation
To date, trials of agents used in cancer patients for the prevention of
CIPN have not shown any consistent and/or conclusive clinically
meaningful benefits when compared with placebo controls. The
strength of the evidence for venlafaxine was inadequate and thus
not strong enough to recommend it for use in routine clinical
practice (Table 3). This result is consistent with the systematic
Cochrane review on the treatment of platinum drug–induced peripheral neurotoxicity.61 Additional work evaluating venlafaxine
would be welcomed.
TREATMENT
Trial Results
Six trials investigated antidepressants, anticonvulsants, and a topical
gel for the treatment of CIPN62-67 (Table 4).
Smith et al62 studied the effect of duloxetine in a randomized,
placebo-controlled, cross-over trial of 231 patients with CIPN. Patients received 30 mg of duloxetine or placebo for the first week and
60 mg of duloxetine or placebo for 4 more weeks. Patients who
received duloxetine reported a significant decrease in average pain
compared with those who received placebo (P ⫽ .003). In addition
to a decrease in pain, data from the trial also supported that
duloxetine decreased numbness and tingling symptoms. Results
from an exploratory subgroup analysis suggest that duloxetine may
be more efficacious for oxaliplatin-induced, as opposed to
paclitaxel-induced, painful neuropathy.
Two small trials65,66 investigated the efficacy of the tricyclic antidepressants amitriptyline (target maximum dose of 50 mg/d) and
nortriptyline (target maximum dose of 100 mg/d) in treatment of
CIPN. These trials failed to demonstrate any significant improvements in patient-reported sensory symptoms or QOL, as measured by
the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer
(EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire–Core 3066 and a horizontal
visual analog scale.65 One trial66 terminated patient recruitment early
as a result of poor recruitment rates. Similarly, two trials63,64 evaluating the effects of anticonvulsants on CIPN were unable to demonstrate
any benefit for either gabapentin at a target dose of 2,700 mg/d64 or
lamotrigine at a target dose of 300 mg/d.63 Primary outcome measures
in both studies included average pain as measured by a numerical
rating scale and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group neuropathy scale.
Finally, one trial NCCTG N06CA,67 evaluated a compounded
topical gel treatment manufactured by Gateway Compounding Pharmacy in Bismark, ND, each 1.31 g measured dose containing baclofen
(10 mg), amitriptyline HCL (40 mg), and ketamine (20 mg). In 208
randomly allocated patients, a trend was reported toward improvements in the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire–ChemotherapyInduced Neuropathy 20 sensory subscale scores (P ⫽ .053), whereas a
significant improvement was reported in motor subscale scores
(P ⫽ .021).
Clinical Interpretation
Duloxetine is recommended for clinical practice in patients with painful CIPN, based on efficacy data from a large randomized placebocontrolled trial,62 the results of which are consistent with the
established efficacy of duloxetine in patients with painful diabetic
Table 3. Summary of Recommendations
Interventions
Prevention
Acetylcysteine
Acetyl-L -carnitine
Strength of
Recommendation
Strength of
Evidence
Inconclusive
Strong against
Low
High
Amifostine
Moderate against
Intermediate
Amitriptyline
Moderate against
Intermediate
Calcium and
magnesium
Moderate against
Carbamazepine/
oxycarbazepine
Benefits
Low
No evidence
of efficacy
Low
Harmsⴱ
Low
High
Moderate
High
No evidence
of efficacy
Low
Low
Inconclusive
Low
Low
Low
Diethyldithiocarbamate
Strong against
Low
No evidence
of efficacy
High
Glutamate/glutamine
Inconclusive
Low
Low
Low
Glutathione for
paclitaxel/carboplatin
Glutathione for
cisplatin or
oxaliplatin
Goshajinkigan (Kampo
medicine)
Nimodipine
Moderate against
Intermediate
Low
Low
Inconclusive
Low
Low
Low
Inconclusive
Low
Low
Low
Strong against
Low
Moderate
Omega 3
Inconclusive
Low
No evidence
of efficacy
Low
Low
Org 2766
Moderate against
Intermediate
Low
Low
Retinoic acid
Moderate against
Low
Low
Moderate
rhuLIF
Moderate against
Low
Low
Venlafaxine
Insufficient
Intermediate
No evidence
of efficacy
Moderate
Moderate
Vitamin E
Moderate against
Intermediate
Low
Low
Inconclusive
Low
Low
Moderate
Duloxetine
Moderate for
Intermediate
Moderate
Low
Gabapentin
Inconclusive
Intermediate
Low
Low
Lamotrigine
Moderate against
Intermediate
Low
Low
Low
Treatment
Acetyl-L -carnitine
Nortriptyline/amitriptyline Inconclusive
Intermediate
No evidence
of efficacy
Low
Topical amitriptyline,
ketamine,
⫾ Baclofen
Intermediate
Moderate
Inconclusive
Moderate
Additional Comments
One very small randomized trial looked promising.
A phase III trial (N ⫽ 409) found no evidence of efficacy and
an unexpected increase in CIPN at 24 wk in active arm.
While several trials supported that neuropathy might be a
little better with the active treatment arm, there was
substantial associated toxicity.
Negative, reasonably-sized phase III trial with significant
difference in toxicities.
Negative large phase III trial (and 3 smaller placebo-controlled
trials) did not substantiate uncontrolled data reports and a
positive trial that was prematurely closed.
Two relatively small trials, one of which was neutral and one
of which suggested benefit, although with an unblinded
control arm.
Active treatment arm had more toxicity, more patients likely
to stop chemotherapy as a result of toxicity, and lower
cisplatin cumulative doses.
Two small- to moderate-sized trials, which suggested some
benefit in some measures of neuropathy.
One reasonably-sized trial which was convincingly negative.
Six small trials, five of which suggested benefit along with the trial
that looked at N-acetyl-cysteine (which increases serum
glutathione concentrations), detailed earlier in this table.
Forty-five patient trial, with unblinded control arm, that
suggested benefit.
Worse outcome for active arm.
57 patient trial that supported benefit for the active treatment
arm.
Four reports regarding 3 small trials which suggested benefit
but negative results from 2 larger well conducted trials,
one of which reported worse outcome for active arm
(Roberts 1997).
One small RCT with unblinded control group and significant
difference in toxicities.
Worse neuropathy endpoints in the active therapy arm for
changes in velocity in the median nerve.
A small randomized trial that was a mixture between a
prevention versus a treatment trial was associated with
many positive P values suggesting benefit.
While three small randomized trials were reported as
showing benefit, a larger phase III trial was convincingly
negative.
While a positive phase III trial was reported in abstract form
only, note that a prevention trial was associated with more
neuropathy related to this agent.
Phase III trial positive, overall, for treatment of oxaliplatin or
paclitaxel neuropathy. Subset analysis suggested that
benefit may be primarily with oxaliplatin-induced
neuropathic pain.
Single negative phase III trial, but data supportive of benefit
in other forms of neuropathy and clinical experience in
CIPN support further study and clinical consideration.
Negative phase III trial and data in non-CIPN neuropathy are
not impressive.
Two small low-power phase III trials with numerical data
favoring the active treatment arms.
Phase III trial of compounded topical preparation from
Gateway Compounding Pharmacy in Bismark, ND, that
delivered 1.31-gm dose containing amitriptyline HCl 40
mg, Baclofen 10 mg and ketamine 20 mg in a pluronic
lecithin organogel, with data suggesting that the active
arm decreased sensory neuropathy (P ⫽ .053) and motor
neuropathy (P ⫽ .021).
Abbreviations: CIPN, chemotherapy-induced neuropathy; RCT, randomized controlled trial.
ⴱ
“Harms” are based only on the results of the specific clinical trials in the previous Tables and not on any other evaluations of the safety of these treatments.
www.jco.org
19
20
51 total; N/PL:
26, PL/N: 25
44 total
Vinca alcaloids,
platinum, or
taxanes
Cisplatin
Vinca alcaloids,
platinum or
taxanes
Rao, 200863
Lamotrigine
(LAM)
Kautio,
200866
Nortriptyline
Hammack,
(No.)/
200265
amitriptyline
(AMI)
131 total; LAM:
63, PL: 62
Vinca alcaloids,
platinum, or
taxanes
Rao, 200764
Gabapentin (G)
115 total; G/P
arm: 57, P/G
arm: 58
231 total; Grp A:
115, drug
then cross
over to
placebo; Grp
B: 116,
placebo then
cross over to
drug
Taxane or platinum
Smith,
201362
Patients (No.)
Duloxetine
(Dulox)
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
Authors and
Study
Design
Pharmacologic
Agent
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Gabapentin increased
to target dose of
2,700 mg daily, for
6 wk, then 2 wk
washout, followed
by 6 wk of placebo
Lamotrigine 25 mg for
2 wk, 25 mg twice
daily for 2 wk, 50
mg twice daily for 2
wk, 100 mg twice
daily 2 wk, 150 mg
twice daily 2 wk
Nortriptyline 25 mg
daily, increasing
weekly to
maximum target
dose 100 mg daily
in a 4-wk phase
followed by a
second placebo
phase (order
reversed for arm B)
10 mg/d up to max of
50 mg/d, followed
by a stable dose ⱖ
4 wk
30 mg for 1 week and
then 60 mg daily
for 4 additional
weeks
Intervention Dose
Incidence
of
Neuropathy
Severity of neuropathy
assessed by NCI
criteriaS: no
significant
differences between
groups
NR
Mean decrease in
symptom severity
(measured by
ENS)ⴱ: LAM: 0.4,
PL: 0.3; P ⫽ .36
Relative risk benefit of
30% pain reduction
with duloxetineSA:
RR: 1.96 (95%
CI,1.15 to 3.35)
Relative risk benefit
of 50% pain
reduction with
duloxetineSA: RR:
2.43 (95% CI,1.11
to 5.30)
NR
Table 4. Randomized Controlled Trials on the Treatment of Established CIPN
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Neurophysiologic
or Instrumental
Investigations
No significant differences in paresthesiaⴱ
were observed in the first treatment
period between nortriptyline and
placebo (P ⫽ .78)
Clinically significant decrease in pain as
measured by VASS: first treatment
period; N: 30%, P: 33%; P ⫽ .99
Mean QOL scores as measured by
VASS: first treatment period: N: ⫺4.6,
P: ⫺7.7; P ⫽ .74
Mean global improvement assessed by
diary dataⴱ: AMI: 3.4 ⫾ 3.6, PL: 1.9 ⫾
3.1; P ⫽ NS
Global improvement assessed by VRS at
final visitⴱ: AMI: ⫺47%, PL: ⫺31%; P ⫽
NS
EORTC-C30S: amitriptyline significantly
improved QOL over placebo (P ⫽ .038)
Depression and Sleeps: no significant
changes in the depression scale in either
group and no differences between
groups
Physical ActivityS: no significant difference
between groups
Average pain (mean change score) as
measured by BPI-SFⴱ: Dulox first:
1.06 (95% CI, 0.72-1.40), PL first:
0.34 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.66); P ⫽ .003;
effect size ⫽ 0.513
Mean change in FACT/GOG-Ntx total
score)S: Dulox first: 2.44 (95% CI,
0.43 to 4.45), PL first: 0.87 (95% CI,
⫺1.09 to 2.82); P ⫽ .03
Mean difference in mean change score:
1.58 (95% CI, 0.15 to 3.00)
Changes in patient-reported multiple
baseline pain and neuropathy scores
similar in both treatment armsⴱ
Similar changes in analgesic use, quality
of life, and global impression of
change scores between study armsS.
Mean decrease in average pain score
(measured by ENS)ⴱ: LAM: 0.3, PL:
0.5; P ⫽ .56
Subject Global Impression of Change:S
LAM: 17.6%, PL: 17.4%; P ⫽ .4
QOL, Symptom Relief and/or Other
Patient-Reported Outcomes
Hershman et al
www.jco.org
Vinca alkaloids,
platinum,
taxanes or
thalidomide
Neurotoxic
Chemotherapy
Agent
208 total
Patients (No.)
Compounded gel
containing
baclofen10 mg,
amitriptyline HCL
40 mg, and
ketamine 20 mg,
application to
affected area twice
daily for 4 wk
Intervention Dose
NA
Incidence
of
Neuropathy
EORTC CIPN-20 mean
neuropathy change
from BL to 4 wkⴱ:
Sensory subscale:
BAK: 8.1 ⫾ 15.05,
PL: 3.8 ⫾ 15.52;
difference: 4.3;
(95% CI, ⫺0.6 to
9.3); P ⫽ .053
Motor subscale: BAK:
7.1 ⫾ 13.72, PL:
1.8 ⫾ 14.05;
difference: 5.3;
(95% CI, 0.9 to 9.7);
P ⫽ .021
Autonomic subscale:
BAK: 3.3, PL: 1.7;
difference: 1.6;
(95% CI, ⫺4.0 to
7.1); P ⫽ .580
NR
Neurophysiologic
or Instrumental
Investigations
Table 4. Randomized Controlled Trials on the Treatment of Established CIPN (continued)
Brief Pain InventoryS: no significant
difference between groups
Profile of Mood StatesS: no significant
difference between groups
QOL, Symptom Relief and/or Other
Patient-Reported Outcomes
Abbreviations: ADL, activities of daily living; AUC, area under the curve; CIPNS, chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy survey; DEB-NTS, Debiopharm Neurotoxicity Scale; ECOG, Eastern Cooperative
Oncology Group; ENS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group neuropathy scale; EORTC QLQ, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire; FACT/GOG-Ntx, Functional
Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale/Gynecologic Oncology Group-Neurotoxicity scale; FACT-TOI, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-Taxane Trial Outcome Index; GOG, Gynecologic Oncology
Group; NA, not applicable; NCI-CTC, National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria; NCS, nerve conduction studies; NDS, Neurological Disability Score; No. of patients, No. of patients randomly assigned;
NR, not reported; NS, not significant; NSS, Neurological Symptom Score; OSS, oxaliplatin-specific scale; PL, placebo; PN, peripheral neuropathy; PNP, peripheral neuropathy score; QLQ-C30, European Organisation
for the Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire-30 items; rTNT, reduced Total Neuropathy Score; SCV, sensory conduction velocity; SNAP, sensory nerve action potentials; SWOG, South West Oncology
Group; TNS, Total Neuropathy Score; VPT, vibration perception threshold.
P
Primary end point of study.
S
Secondary end point of study.
SA
Subgroup analysis.
ⴱ
Primary or secondary end points not reported.
Topical
Barton,
amitriptyline,
201167
ketamine,
⫾ Baclofen
(BAK)
Pharmacologic
Agent
Authors and
Study
Design
21
Hershman et al
peripheral neuropathy. It is important to note that this trial predominantly included patients with breast and gastrointestinal malignancies with grade 1 or higher sensory neuropathy and a score of at least 4
on a scale of 0 to 10 representing average chemotherapy-induced pain
3 or more months after treatment completion. Like all clinical trials,
data showing a benefit for patients that do not match the study criteria
are not known. Exploratory subgroup analysis suggests that duloxetine may work better for oxaliplatin-induced, as opposed to
paclitaxel-induced, painful neuropathy. Ideally, all findings from this
trial should be confirmed. In the meantime, clinicians should be
prepared to weigh the recommendations for their individual patients
with the potential risks and adverse effects. Lamotrigine is not recommended for clinical practice because of limited evidence of efficacy for
CIPN or other forms of neuropathy (and because there is a risk of
Stephens-Johnson syndrome associated with lamotrigine).
While none of the other studied compounds meet the criteria to
be formally recommended for clinical practice at this time, there are
three options that may be offered for patients despite not yet having
been proven to be helpful for CIPN. These options are (1) a tricyclic
antidepressant (such as nortriptyline); (2) gabapentin or another
medication with the same mechanism of action, pregabalin; and (3)
a compounded topical gel containing baclofen (10 mg), amitriptyline HCL (40 mg), and ketamine (20 mg). The reasons to consider
these options are (1) the magnitude of the unmet need for treating
established CIPN, (2) methodological concerns about the quality
of the trials, and (3) the relative safety of these agents. However,
there are limitations to using these agents. First, the tricyclic agents
can cause toxicity, especially in elderly patients. Second, there is a
single negative randomized trial evaluating gabapentin for the
treatment of CIPN (which may have been underpowered and did
not have painful CIPN as the primary end point). Third, although
a trial of topical baclofen (10 mg), amitriptyline HCL (40 mg), and
ketamine (20 mg) decreased CIPN symptoms, this compounded
agent is not commercially available and can only be manufactured
by a compounding pharmacy. In addition, the long-term safety of
this preparation has not been established.
DISCUSSION
Unfortunately, these guidelines do not make any recommendations
for clinical practice regarding agents to prevent CIPN, other than
decreasing the dose or duration of an offending cytotoxic agent. With
regard to recommendations about the treatment of established CIPN,
these guidelines do make some treatment recommendations and considerations (Table 3). This raises a reasonable question: why were these
guidelines developed?
The decision to develop these guidelines was based on the magnitude of the clinical problem and the moderate body of work that has
been completed to understand potential means of preventing and/or
treating this prominent condition. These guidelines were designed to
portray the problem, provide a current and comprehensive evidentiary base, and develop clinical recommendations for or against the use
of studied therapies.
In addition to the single positive recommendation for duloxetine
for the treatment of established CIPN pain, the conclusions of this
committee include recommendations about what should not be routinely used in practice, despite some initial promising studies suggest22
ing usefulness. A moderate recommendation is made against the use
of lamotrigine for the treatment of established CIPN, and moderate to
strong recommendations are made against the following agents for the
prevention of CIPN: ALC , amifostine, amitriptyline, intravenous
CaMg, DDTC, nimodipine, Org 2766, retinoic acid, rhuLIF, and vitamin E.
The current work sets the stage for future guideline updates as
new evidence arises. As such, it is worthwhile to discuss thoughts
about future CIPN research. First, studies regarding the basic mechanisms of CIPN are encouraged. The same is true regarding studies
related to the clinical manifestations and measurement of this problem. The identification of valid and reproducible tools to assess the
extent and severity of CIPN is needed to define the best end points for
clinical trials.3,4 Moreover, the recognition of differences between
patient-reported, clinician-reported, and objective outcomes should
be carefully considered.1,68-71 To this end, it is reasonable to summarize current thoughts about how to measure CIPN, which is primarily
a sensory problem, in clinical trials. First, it is well accepted that
PRO measures of sensory CIPN are preferred over cliniciandetermined assessments. Second, there are several PRO CIPN measures, which have strong psychometric properties, that have been
extensively studied, including the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life QuestionnaireChemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20 scale, the
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology
Group Neurotoxicity tool, and the Total Neuropathy Score (a
mixture of PRO and physical examination measures).3,72-81 Lastly,
recent work comparing such tools does note that they each have
strengths and that no clear-cut winner can be declared.4,71
The identification of new agents to prevent and/or treat CIPN is
essential. An example of an agent that appears promising for the
potential prevention of CIPN is minocycline, primarily based on encouraging preclinical data.82-84 Also, the preliminary data supporting
that GSH may be helpful for platinum-caused neuropathy, reviewed
above, deserves further evaluation, despite a negative trial that was
unable to support the utility of GSH for the prevention of paclitaxelinduced neuropathy. In addition, evidence supporting the potential
efficacy of venlafaxine for prevention of oxaliplatin-induced CIPN
provides a compelling impetus for further study of venlafaxine and/or
duloxetine for preventing CIPN.
More studies are also warranted to better define how individual
patient genetic variations may contribute to differences in the development of CIPN.85 To this end, a research group sequenced 20,794
genes associated with heredity neuropathy from patients who had
received paclitaxel-based chemotherapy and reported that EPHA5,
ARHGEF10, and PRX are associated with the likelihood of developing
CIPN.86 Novel genetic markers of paclitaxel-induced sensory peripheral neuropathy have also been preliminarily identified and include a
common polymorphism in the congenital peripheral neuropathy
gene, FGD487 and the CYP2C8 gene, which is responsible for metabolizing paclitaxel,88 and the Fanconi anemia complementation group
of genes (FANCD2).89 Future identification of patients at an increased
risk of peripheral neuropathy may inform the use of alternative therapy and/or the clinical management of this toxicity.87
With regard to potential study ideas for the treatment of established CIPN, it could be argued that further study is needed to evaluate
the efficacy and safety of a number of topical therapies. Additional
data regarding a topical gel treatment containing baclofen, amitriptyline HCL, and ketamine for patients who have symptomatic CIPN
would be helpful. Another promising agent is topical menthol. Menthol is a topical cooling compound that selectively activates TRPM8
receptors, which are upregulated after sensory nerve injury. A phase II
clinical trial of topical 1% menthol in 29 patients with painful CIPN
showed that 83% demonstrated pain improvement after 4 to 6
weeks.90 A second open-label study of 1% topical menthol twice daily
in 27 patients with CIPN reported that 75% of the subjects had a 10%
decrease and 50% showed over 30% decrease in self-reported symptoms.91 This supports the further investigation of menthol for treating
established CIPN. Topical capsaicin preparations have also been used
to effectively treat peripheral neuropathic pain. However, evidence of
its effectiveness in CIPN has not yet been established. Trials investigating the efficacy of high-dose capsaicin preparations for severe CIPN
are of interest.
Given the prominent clinical use of gabapentin and pregabalin in
clinical practice, the demonstrated efficacy of these drugs for treating
other types of neuropathy pain, and that only one phase III trial has
been done in patients with established CIPN, another phase III trial of
either drug would also be of great value.
Clinicians should not offer the following agents for the prevention of CIPN to patients with cancer undergoing treatment with neurotoxic agents:
● ALC
● amifostine
● amitriptyline
● CaMg for patients receiving oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy
● DDTC
● GSH for patients receiving paclitaxel/carboplatin chemotherapy
● nimodipine
● Org 2766
● all-trans retinoic acid
● rhuLIF
● vitamin E.
Venlafaxine is not recommended for routine use in clinical practice.
Although the venlafaxine data resulted in some support for its utility,
the data were not strong enough to recommend its use in clinical
practice until additional supporting data become available.
No recommendations can be made on the use of Nacetylcysteine, carbamazepine, glutamate, GSH (for patients receiving
cisplatin or oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy), GJG, omega-3 fatty acids, or oxycarbazepine for the prevention of CIPN at this time.
EXTERNAL REVIEW
TREATMENT OF CIPN
A draft of the clinical practice guideline was reviewed by two Clinical
Practice Guideline Committee members and 12 Survivorship Guideline Advisory Group members. In addition to providing comment
and feedback, practitioners were asked to judge the evidence review
and agreement with the recommendations. One additional reviewer
was asked to assess the clarity of the recommendations and ease of
implementation. The evidence review was rated as high quality, and
there was high agreement with the substance of the recommendations.
The compounded topical baclofen-amitriptyline-ketamine gel
was identified as having barriers to implementation. The product was
created by one compounding pharmacy for a trial, and the combination is not US Food and Drug Administration approved. Lack of
insurance reimbursement for compounded products was also raised.
Although not a recommended treatment, the statement regarding the
topical gel as an option comes with a qualifier that specifies patients
should be informed about the limited scientific evidence, potential
harms, benefits, and costs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are evidence based, informed by
generally small RCTs, and guided by clinical experience. Ratings for
benefits, harms, evidence quality, and recommendation strength are
provided in Table 3 (see Appendix Table A1 for rating definitions).
PREVENTION OF CIPN
There are no established agents recommended for the prevention of
CIPN in patients with cancer undergoing treatment with neurotoxic
agents. This is based on the paucity of high-quality, consistent evidence and a balance of benefits versus harms.
www.jco.org
For patients with cancer experiencing CIPN, clinicians may
offer duloxetine
No recommendations can be made on the use of.
● ALC, noting that a positive phase III abstract supported its
value, but this work has not yet been published in a peerreviewed journal, and a prevention trial suggested that this
agent was associated with worse outcomes.
● Tricyclic antidepressants; however, based on the limited options that are available for this prominent clinical problem
and the demonstrated efficacy of these drugs for other neuropathic pain conditions, it is reasonable to try a tricyclic antidepressant (eg, nortriptyline or desipramine) in patients
suffering from CIPN after a discussion with the patients about
the limited scientific evidence for CIPN, potential harms,
benefits, cost, and patient preferences.
● Gabapentin, noting that the available data were limited regarding its efficacy for treating CIPN. However, the panel felt
that this agent is reasonable to try for selected patients with
CIPN pain given (1) that only a single negative randomized
trial for this agent was completed, (2) the established efficacy
of gabapentin and pregabalin for other forms of neuropathic
pain, and (3) the limited CIPN treatment options. Patients
should be informed about the limited scientific evidence for
CIPN, potential harms, benefits, and costs.
● A topical gel treatment containing baclofen (10 mg), amitriptyline HCL (40 mg), and ketamine (20 mg), noting that a
single trial supported that this product did decrease CIPN
symptoms. Given the available data, the panel felt that this
agent is reasonable to try for selected patients with CIPN pain.
Patients should be informed about the limited scientific evidence for the treatment of CIPN, potential harms, benefits,
and costs.
23
Hershman et al
SPECIAL COMMENTARY
A number of nonpharmacologic interventions have been investigated
for their role in preventing or treating peripheral neuropathy. However, the paucity of RCT evidence prohibited inclusion of those studies
in this systematic review. Moreover, the studies were often conducted
in diabetic populations, with no specific focus on CIPN. Nevertheless,
several of the interventions have been tested in populations that included patients with cancer experiencing CIPN and, as such, merit
further examination.
Evidence of the efficacy and effectiveness of one such intervention, acupuncture, was systematically reviewed by Franconi et al for
the treatment of CIPN.92 Seven clinical studies of varying designs and
methodological rigor were identified. Although there were some indications of improvement in symptoms and pain scores in most included studies, the current available evidence is limited. Evidence of
efficacy of electrocutaneous nerve stimulation in relieving refractory
chronic pain93 led investigators to test its potential in patients with
CIPN. A small pilot study specifically tested the MC5-A Calmare
device on 16 patients with refractory CIPN.94 The device, which is
hypothesized to provide ‘‘nonpain” information to the cutaneous
nerves to block the effect of pain, showed an improvement in pain
scores (59% reduction at 10 days, P ⬍ .001) with no reported adverse
effects. However, a placebo-controlled, randomized, small (14 total
patients) trial, published only as an abstract, was unable to demonstrate a benefit for scrambler therapy.95 Randomized controlled evaluation of the efficacy of electrocutaneous nerve stimulation in CIPN is
ongoing. The use of other complementary or alternative medicine
modalities in patients with CIPN is expanding.96
PATIENT AND CLINICIAN COMMUNICATION
CIPN is a serious adverse effect of certain therapies that can interfere
with the efficacy of treatment and decrease quality of life. It is important for the physician to initiate discussion of the potential for CIPN as
the patient, who can be overwhelmed by the cancer diagnosis and
treatment regimen, may not want to burden the clinician with additional concerns and they may think that early CIPN symptoms are
imaginary. Indeed, the patient may not recognize the potential for
more permanent damage. Therefore, it is important that the clinician
address the potential intensity and symptomatic variants of CIPN.
Also, because there is opportunity to decrease the CIPN if it is reported
and recognized early, the clinician needs to be alert to its genesis. This
might be accomplished by an initial discussion with the patient of the
potential for CIPN followed by regular symptomatic assessments. If a
numeric scale is used, it is important to augment the scale number
with discussion of the actual symptoms and their impact on quality of
life. While there may be instances where CIPN must be tolerated,
because of limited treatment choices, there are other instances where,
with early recognition and intervention, the treatment regimen can be
changed to obviate the adverse effect.
HEALTH DISPARITIES
A growing body of evidence is surfacing that suggests patients of
African American descent are at a significant increased risk of taxane24
induced neuropathy. Data from breast cancer trials have recently put
the risk of CIPN in black women at double that of white women
(hazard ratio ⫽ 2.1; P ⫽ 4.5 ⫻10⫺11).97 This evidence has also been
supported in a retrospective cohort98 study of 260 women (27% black)
receiving paclitaxel for nonmetastatic breast cancer. Black race was the
only statistically significant independent risk factor for dose-limiting
CIPN. Compared with whites, black women had a greater than 3-fold
increased risk of dose-limiting CIPN (hazard ratio ⫽ 3.35; 95% CI,
1.54 to 7.28). Clinicians need to be made aware of such emerging data
supporting racial differences in susceptibility, onset, and severity in
order to allow for appropriate management strategies and continued
adherence to crucial chemotherapy treatments.98
MULTIPLE CHRONIC CONDITIONS
Creating evidence-based recommendations to inform treatment of
patients with additional chronic conditions, a situation in which the
patient may have 2 or more such conditions—referred to as multiple
chronic conditions (MCC)—is challenging. Patients with MCC are a
complex and heterogeneous population, making it difficult to account
for all of the possible permutations to develop specific recommendations for care.99 In addition, the best available evidence for treating
index conditions, such as cancer, is often from clinical trials whose
study selection criteria may exclude these patients in order to avoid
potential interaction effects or confounding of results associated with
MCC. As a result, the reliability of outcome data from these studies
may be limited, thereby creating constraints for expert groups to make
recommendations for care in this heterogeneous patient population.
As many patients for whom guideline recommendations apply
present with MCC, any management plan needs to take into account
the complexity and uncertainty created by the presence of MCC and
highlight the importance of shared decision making around guideline
use and implementation. Indeed, cancer survivors with pre-existing
conditions may be predisposed or more vulnerable to the development of neuropathy. Conditions reported to be associated with an
increased risk include diabetes, alcoholism, nonalcoholic liver disease,
amyloidosis, HIV, peripheral vascular disease, and nutritional deficiencies.77,100 Therefore, in consideration of recommended care for
the target index condition, clinicians should review all other chronic
conditions present in the patient and take those conditions into account when formulating the treatment and follow-up plan.
Taking the above considerations into account, practice guidelines should provide information on how to apply the recommendations for patients with MCC, perhaps as a qualifying statement for
recommended care. This may mean that some or all of the recommended care options are modified or not applied, as determined by
best practice in consideration of any MCC.
GUIDELINE IMPLEMENTATION
ASCO guidelines are developed for implementation across health
settings. Barriers to implementation include the need to increase
awareness of the guideline recommendations among front-line practitioners and cancer survivors, and also to provide adequate services in
the face of limited resources. The guideline Bottom Line was designed
to facilitate implementation of recommendations. This guideline will
be distributed widely through the ASCO Practice Guideline Implementation Network. ASCO guidelines are posted on the ASCO Web
site and most often published in Journal of Clinical Oncology and
Journal of Oncology Practice.
LIMITATION OF THE RESEARCH AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
ASCO believes that cancer clinical trials are vital to inform medical
decisions and improve cancer care, and that all patients should have
the opportunity to participate. The development of a comprehensive
and standardized approach to the assessment of CIPN is still necessary
to ensure the reliable and valid acquisition of data, will which allow
clinicians to better recognize, understand, and respond to CIPN. Furthermore, since most studies tested interventions for paclitaxel- or
oxaliplatin-induced CIPN, large, methodologically rigorous trials
evaluating the prevention and treatment of CIPN caused by other
neurotoxic drugs (eg, bortezomib, vinca alkaloids, nab-paclitaxel, docetaxel, cisplatin, thalidomide/lenalidomide) are still needed to ensure
availability of evidence on which future clinical decisions can be based.
Finally, many of the studies reviewed did not consistently report the
adverse effects of the tested agents (see Data Supplement for Table 5:
Data on Adverse Events). This is an important missing component
that is indispensable for both physicians and patients in making informed decisions about management of CIPN and should be reported
in all future trials.
guidelines/neuropathy. Patient information is available there and
at www.cancer.net.
AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS
OF INTEREST
Although all authors completed the disclosure declaration, the following
author(s) and/or an author’s immediate family member(s) indicated a
financial or other interest that is relevant to the subject matter under
consideration in this article. Certain relationships marked with a “U” are
those for which no compensation was received; those relationships marked
with a “C” were compensated. For a detailed description of the disclosure
categories, or for more information about ASCO’s conflict of interest policy,
please refer to the Author Disclosure Declaration and the Disclosures of
Potential Conflicts of Interest section in Information for Contributors.
Employment or Leadership Position: None Consultant or Advisory
Role: Robert Dworkin, Acorda (C), Anika (C), Avanir (C), Bayer (C),
Charleston (C), Concert (C), DePuy (C), Flexion (C), Genentech (C),
Johnson & Johnson (C), Lilly (C), Lpath (C), Nektar (C), Neura (C),
Olatec (C), Omeros (C), PeriphaGen (C), Pfizer (C), Phosphagenics (C),
Prolong (C), Q-Med (C), Regenesis (C), Sanofi (C), Spinifex (C), Takeda
(C), Taris (C), Teva (C); Bryan Schneider, Novartis (C), Genentech (C)
Stock Ownership: None Honoraria: Bryan Schneider, Novartis,
GlaxoSmithKline, Genentech Research Funding: Robert Dworkin, Eli
Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi, Bayer; Ellen M. Lavoie Smith, Lill, National
Institutes of Health, University of Michigan; Charles L. Loprinzi, Pfizer,
Competitive Technologies Expert Testimony: None Patents, Royalties,
and Licenses: None Other Remuneration: None
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Additional Information including data supplements, evidence tables,
and clinical tools and resources can be found at http://www.asco.org/
REFERENCES
1. Hershman DL, Weimer LH, Wang A, et al:
Association between patient reported outcomes
and quantitative sensory tests for measuring longterm neurotoxicity in breast cancer survivors treated
with adjuvant paclitaxel chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 125:767-774, 2011
2. Cavaletti G, Zanna C: Current status and
future prospects for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity. Eur J Cancer
38:1832-1837, 2002
3. Cavaletti G, Frigeni B, Lanzani F, et al: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity assessment: A critical revision of the currently available
tools. Eur J Cancer 46:479-494, 2010
4. Cavaletti G, Cornblath DR, Merkies IS, et al:
The Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy
Outcome Measures Standardization study: From
consensus to the first validity and reliability findings.
Ann Oncol 24:454-462, 2013
5. Pachman DR, Barton DL, Watson JC, et al:
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: Prevention and treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther 90:377387, 2011
6. Stubblefield MD, Burstein HJ, Burton AW, et
al: NCCN task force report: Management of neuropathy in cancer. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 7:S1-S26;
quiz S7-S8, 2009 (suppl 5)
7. Argyriou AA, Bruna J, Marmiroli P, et al:
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity (CIPN):
www.jco.org
Administrative support: Christina Lacchetti, Kate Bak
Manuscript writing: All authors
Final approval of manuscript: All authors
an update. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 82:51-77,
2012
8. Tanabe Y, Hashimoto K, Shimizu C, et al:
Paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy in patients
receiving adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.
Int J Clin Oncol 18:132-138, 2013
9. Scripture CD, Figg WD, Sparreboom A: Peripheral neuropathy induced by paclitaxel: recent
insights and future perspectives. Curr Neuropharmacol 4:165-172, 2006
10. Park SB, Lin CS, Krishnan AV, et al: Utilizing
natural activity to dissect the pathophysiology of
acute oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy. Exper Neurol
227:120-127, 2011
11. Grothey A, Nikcevich DA, Sloan JA, et al:
Intravenous calcium and magnesium for oxaliplatininduced sensory neurotoxicity in adjuvant colon cancer: NCCTG N04C7. J Clin Oncol 29:421-427, 2011
12. Gamelin EGL, Bossi L, Quasthoff S: Clinical
aspects and molecular basis of oxaliplatin neurotoxicity: Current management and development of preventive measures. Semin Oncol 29:21-33, 2002
(suppl 15)
13. Velasco R, Briani C, Argyriou AA, et al: Early
predictors of oxaliplatin-induced cumulative neuropathy in colorectal cancer patients. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry [epub ahead of print on June 29,
2013].
14. Loprinzi CL, Reeves BN, Dakhil SR, et al:
Natural history of paclitaxel-associated acute pain
syndrome: Prospective cohort study NCCTG N08C1.
J Clin Oncol 29:1472-1478, 2011
15. Loprinzi CL, Maddocks-Christianson K, Wolf
SL, et al: The paclitaxel acute pain syndrome: Sensitization of nociceptors as the putative mechanism.
Cancer J 13:399-403, 2007
16. Reeves BN, Dakhil SR, Sloan JA, et al: Further data supporting that paclitaxel-associated acute
pain syndrome is associated with development of
peripheral neuropathy: North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N08C1. Cancer 118:5171-5178,
2012
17. Wolf SL, Barton DL, Qin R, et al: The relationship between numbness, tingling, and shooting/
burning pain in patients with chemotherapy-induced
peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) as measured by the
EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 instrument, N06CA. Support
Care Cancer 20:625-632, 2012
18. Hilpert F, Sta¨hle A, Tome O, et al: Neuroprotection with amifostine in the first-line treatment of
advanced ovarian cancer with carboplatin/paclitaxelbased chemotherapy–a double-blind, placebocontrolled, randomized phase II study from the
Arbeitsgemeinschaft Gynakologische Onkologoie
(AGO) Ovarian Cancer Study Group. Support Care
Cancer 13:797-805, 2005
19. Chay WY, Tan SH, Lo YL, et al: Use of
calcium and magnesium infusions in prevention of
oxaliplatin induced sensory neuropathy. Asia-Pacific
J Clin Oncol 6:270-277, 2010
20. von Delius S, Eckel F, Wagenpfeil S, et al:
Carbamazepine for prevention of oxaliplatin-related
neurotoxicity in patients with advanced colorectal
cancer: Final results of a randomised, controlled,
25
Hershman et al
multicenter phase II study. Invest New Drugs 25:
173-180, 2007
21. Davis ID, Kiers L, MacGregor L, et al: A
randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled
phase II trial of recombinant human leukemia inhibitory factor (rhuLIF, emfilermin, AM424) to prevent
chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Clin
Cancer Res 11:1890-1898, 2005
22. Argyriou AA, Chroni E, Koutras A, et al: A
randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy
and safety of vitamin E supplementation for protection against cisplatin-induced peripheral neuropathy:
Final results. Support Care Cancer 14:1134-1140,
2006
23. Lin PC, Lee MY, Wang WS, et al:
N-acetylcysteine has neuroprotective effects against
oxaliplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy in colon cancer
patients: Preliminary data. Support Care Cancer 14:484487, 2006
24. Loven D, Levavi H, Sabach G, et al: Longterm glutamate supplementation failed to protect
against peripheral neurotoxicity of paclitaxel. Eur J
Cancer Care 18:78-83, 2009
25. Bogliun GML, Marzola M, Miceli MD, et al:
Neurotoxicity of cisplatin ⫾ reduced glutathione in
the first-line treatment of advanced ovarian cancer.
Int J Gynecol Cancer 6:415-419, 1996
26. Schmidinger M, Budinsky AC, Wenzel C, et
al: Glutathione in the prevention of cisplatin induced
toxicities. A prospectively randomized pilot trial in
patients with head and neck cancer and non small
cell lung cancer. Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift
112:617-623, 2000
27. van Kooten B, van Diemen HA, Groenhout
KM, et al: A pilot study on the influence of a
corticotropin (4-9) analogue on vinca alkaloidinduced neuropathy. Arch Neurol 49:1027-1031,
1992
28. Wang WS, Lin JK, Lin TC, et al: Oral glutamine is effective for preventing oxaliplatin-induced
neuropathy in colorectal cancer patients. Oncologist
12:312-319, 2007
29. Durand JP, Deplanque G, Montheil V, et al:
Efficacy of venlafaxine for the prevention and relief
of oxaliplatin-induced acute neurotoxicity: Results of
EFFOX, a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled phase III trial. Ann Oncol 23:200-205,
2012
30. Ishibashi K, Okada N, Miyazaki T, et al: Effect
of calcium and magnesium on neurotoxicity and
blood platinum concentrations in patients receiving
mFOLFOX6 therapy: A prospective randomized
study. Int J Clin Oncol 15:82-87, 2010
31. Cassidy J, Paul J, Soukop M, et al: Clinical
trials of nimodipine as a potential neuroprotector in
ovarian cancer patients treated with cisplatin. Cancer Chem Pharmacol 41:161-166, 1998
32. Grothey A, Hart LL, Rowland KM, et al:
Intermittent oxaliplatin (oxali) administration and
time-to-treatment-failure (TTF) in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC): Final results of the phase III
CONcePT trial. J Clin Oncol 26:180s, 2008 (suppl;
abstr 4010)
33. Pace A, Savarese A, Picardo M, et al: Neuroprotective effect of vitamin E supplementation in
patients treated with cisplatin chemotherapy. J Clin
Oncol 21:927-931, 2003
34. Nishioka M, Shimada M, Kurita N, et al: The
Kampo medicine, goshajinkigan, prevents neuropathy in patients treated by FOLFOX regimen. Int
J Clin Oncol 16:322-327, 2011
35. Argyriou AA, Chroni E, Polychronopoulos P,
et al: Efficacy of oxcarbazepine for prophylaxis
26
against cumulative oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy.
Neurology 67:2253-2255, 2006
36. Kanat O, Evrensel T, Baran I, et al: Protective
effect of amifostine against toxicity of paclitaxel and
carboplatin in non-small cell lung cancer: A single
center randomized study. Med Oncol 20:237-245,
2003
37. Kemp G, Rose P, Lurain J, et al: Amifostine
pretreatment for protection against cyclophosphamide-induced and cisplatin-induced toxicities: Results of a randomized control trial in patients with
advanced ovarian cancer. J Clin Oncol 14:21012112, 1996
38. Lorusso D, Ferrandina G, Greggi S, et al:
Phase III multicenter randomized trial of amifostine
as cytoprotectant in first-line chemotherapy in ovarian cancer patients. Ann Oncol 14:1086-1093, 2003
39. Planting AS, Catimel G, de Mulder PH, et al:
Randomized study of a short course of weekly
cisplatin with or without amifostine in advanced
head and neck cancer. EORTC Head and Neck
Cooperative Group. Ann Oncol 10:693-700, 1999
40. Leong SS, Tan EH, Fong KW, et al: Randomized double-blind trial of combined modality treatment with or without amifostine in unresectable
stage III non-small-cell lung cancer. J Clin Oncol
21:1767-1774, 2003
41. Kautio AL, Haanpaä¨ M, Leminen A, et al:
Amitriptyline in the prevention of chemotherapyinduced neuropathic symptoms. Anticancer Res 29:
2601-2606, 2009
42. Gamelin L, Boisdron-Celle M, Delva R, et al:
Prevention of oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity by calcium and magnesium infusions: A retrospective
study of 161 patients receiving oxaliplatin combined
with 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin for advanced colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res 10:4055-4061, 2004
43. Hochster HS, Childs B. Use of calcium and
magnesium salts to reduce oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity. J Clin Oncol 25:4028a-4029a, 2007
44. Loprinzi CL, Dakhil SR, Fehrenbacher L, et al:
Phase III randomized, placebo-controlled, doubleblind study of intravenous calcium/magnesium
(CaMg) to prevent oxaliplatin-induced sensory neurotoxicity, N08CB (Alliance). J Clin Oncol [epub
ahead of print on December 2, 2013]
45. Kottschade LA, Sloan JA, Mazurczak MA, et
al: The use of vitamin E for the prevention of
chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: Results of a randomized phase III clinical trial. Support
Care Cancer 19:1769-1777, 2011
46. Pace A, Giannarelli D, Galie` E, et al: Vitamin
E neuroprotection for cisplatin neuropathy: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Neurology 74:762766, 2010
47. Cascinu S, Catalano V, Cordella L, et al:
Neuroprotective effect of reduced glutathione on
oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in advanced colorectal cancer: A randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial. J Clin Oncol 20:3478-3483, 2002
48. Cascinu S, Cordella L, Del Ferro E, et al: Neuroprotective effect of reduced glutathione on cisplatinbased chemotherapy in advanced gastric cancer: A
randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial. J Clin
Oncol 13:26-32, 1995
49. Milla P, Airoldi M, Weber G, et al: Administration of reduced glutathione in FOLFOX4 adjuvant
treatment for colorectal cancer: Effect on oxaliplatin
pharmacokinetics, Pt-DNA adduct formation, and
neurotoxicity. Anti-cancer Drugs 20:396-402, 2009
50. Smyth JF, Bowman A, Perren T, et al: Glutathione reduces the toxicity and improves quality of
life of women diagnosed with ovarian cancer treated
with cisplatin: Results of a double-blind, randomised
trial. Ann Oncol 8:569-573, 1997
51. Leal A, Qin R, Atherton P, et al: The use of
glutathione for prevention of paclitaxel/carboplatin
induced peripheral neuropathy: A phase III randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled study. Cancer
doi: 10.1002/cncr.28654
52. Koeppen S, Verstappen CC, Ko¨rte R, et al:
Lack of neuroprotection by an ACTH (4-9) analogue.
A randomized trial in patients treated with vincristine
for Hodgkin’s or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. J Cancer
Res Clin Oncol 130:153-160, 2004
53. van der Hoop RG, Vecht CJ, van der Burg
ME, et al: Prevention of cisplatin neurotoxicity with
an ACTH(4-9) analogue in patients with ovarian
cancer. New Engl J Med 322:89-94, 1990
54. Roberts JA, Jenison EL, Kim K, et al: A
randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebocontrolled, dose-finding study of ORG 2766 in the
prevention or delay of cisplatin-induced neuropathies in women with ovarian cancer. Gynecol Oncol
67:172-177, 1997
55. Hovestadt A, van der Burg ME, Verbiest HB,
et al: The course of neuropathy after cessation of
cisplatin treatment, combined with Org 2766 or
placebo. J Neurol 239:143-146, 1992
56. van Gerven JM, Hovestadt A, Moll JW, et al:
The effects of an ACTH (4-9) analogue on development of cisplatin neuropathy in testicular cancer: A
randomized trial. J Neurol 241:432-435, 1994
57. Hershman DL, Unger JM, Crew KD, et al:
Randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial of
acetyl-L-carnitine for the prevention of taxaneinduced neuropathy in women undergoing adjuvant
breast cancer therapy. J Clin Oncol 31:2627-2633,
2013
58. Ghoreishi Z, Esfahani A, Djazayeri A, et al:
Omega-3 fatty acids are protective against
paclitaxel-induced peripheral neuropathy: A randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial. BMC Cancer 12:355, 2012
´ , Hernańdez-Pedro N, Fernańdez59. Arrieta O
Gonza´lez-Aragoń MC, et al: Retinoic acid reduces
chemotherapy-induced neuropathy in an animal
model and patients with lung cancer. Neurology
77:987-995, 2011
60. Gandara DR, Nahhas WA, Adelson MD, et al:
Randomized placebo-controlled multicenter evaluation of diethyldithiocarbamate for chemoprotection
against cisplatin-induced toxicities. J Clin Oncol 13:
490-496, 1995
61. Albers JW, Chaudhry V, Cavaletti G, et al:
Interventions for preventing neuropathy caused by
cisplatin and related compounds. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD005228, 2011
62. Smith EM, Pang H, Cirrincione C, et al: Effect
of duloxetine on pain, function, and quality of life
among patients with chemotherapy-induced painful
peripheral neuropathy: A randomized clinical trial.
JAMA 309:1359-1367, 2013
63. Rao RD, Flynn PJ, Sloan JA, et al: Efficacy of
lamotrigine in the management of chemotherapyinduced peripheral neuropathy: A phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, N01C3.
Cancer 112:2802-2808, 2008
64. Rao RD, Michalak JC, Sloan JA, et al: Efficacy of gabapentin in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A phase 3
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover trial (N00C3). Cancer. 110:2110-2118, 2007
65. Hammack JE, Michalak JC, Loprinzi CL, et al:
Phase III evaluation of nortriptyline for alleviation of
symptoms of cis-platinum-induced peripheral neuropathy. Pain 98:195-203, 2002
66. Kautio AL, Haanpaä¨ M, Saarto T, et al: Amitriptyline in the treatment of chemotherapy-induced
neuropathic symptoms. J Pain Symptom Manage
35:31-39, 2008
67. Barton DL, Wos EJ, Qin R, et al: A doubleblind, placebo-controlled trial of a topical treatment
for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy:
NCCTG trial N06CA. Support Care Cancer 19:833841, 2011
68. Binkley JM, Levangie PK, Pearl M, et al:
Patient perspectives on breast cancer treatment
side effects and the prospective surveillance model
for physical rehabilitation for women with breast
cancer. Cancer 118:2207-2216, 2012 (suppl)
69. Bennett BK, Park SB, Lin CS, et al: Impact of
oxaliplatin-induced neuropathy: A patient perspective. Support Care Cancer 20:2959-2967, 2012
70. Inoue N, Ishida H, Sano M, et al: Discrepancy
between the NCI-CTCAE and DEB-NTC scales in the
evaluation of oxaliplatin-related neurotoxicity in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer. Int J Clin
Oncol 17:341-347, 2012
71. Alberti P, Cornblath DR, Merkies IS, et al:
Physician-assessed and patient-reported outcome
measures in chemotherapy-induced sensory peripheral neurotoxicity: Two sides of the same coin. Ann
Oncol 2013 [Epub ahead of print on November 19,
2013]
72. Calhoun EA, Welshman EE, Chang CH, et al:
Psychometric evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy/Gynecologic Oncology
Group-neurotoxicity (Fact/GOG-ntx) questionnaire
for patients receiving systemic chemotherapy. Int J
Gynecol Cancer 13:741-748, 2003
73. Griffith KA, Merkies IS, Hill EE, et al: Measures of
chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: A systematic review of psychometric properties. J Peripher Nerv
Syst 15:314-325, 2010
74. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et
al:. The European Organisation for Research and
Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in
oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365-376, 1993
75. Dworkin RH, Turk DC, Peirce-Sandner S, et
al:. Research design considerations for confirmatory
chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain 149:177-193, 2010
76. Lavoie Smith EM, Cohen JA, Pett MA, et al:
The validity of neuropathy and neuropathic pain
measures in patients with cancer receiving taxanes
and platinums. Oncol Nurs Forum 38:133-142, 2011
77. Smith EM, Beck SL, Cohen J: The total
neuropathy score: A tool for measuring chemother-
apy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Oncol Nurs Forum 35:96-102, 2008
78. Cavaletti G, Bogliun G, Marzorati L, et al:
Grading of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity using the total neuropathy scale. Neurology
61:1297-1300, 2003
79. Cornblath DR, Chaudhry V, Carter K, et al:
Total neuropathy score: Validation and reliability
study. Neurology 53:1660-1664, 1999
80. Lavoie Smith EM, Qin R, Steen PD, et al:
Assessing patient-reported peripheral neuropathy:
The reliability and validity of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQCIPN20 Questionnaire. Qual Life Res [epub ahead of
print March 30, 2013]
81. Postma TJ, Aaronson NK, Heimans JJ, et al:
The development of an EORTC quality of life questionnaire to assess chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy: The QLQ-CIPN20. Eur J Cancer
41:1135-1139, 2005
82. Cata JP, Weng HR, Dougherty PM: The
effects of thalidomide and minocycline on taxolinduced hyperalgesia in rats. Brain Res 1229:100110, 2008
83. White CM, Martin BK, Lee LF, et al: Effects
of paclitaxel on cytokine synthesis by unprimed
human monocytes, T lymphocytes, and breast cancer cells. Cancer Immunol Immunother 46:104-112,
1998
84. Zaks-Zilberman M, Vogel SN: Induction of
proinflammatory and chemokine genes by lipopolysaccharide and paclitaxel (Taxol) in murine and human breast cancer cell lines. Cytokine 15:156-165,
201XXXX
85. Cavaletti G, Alberti P, Marmiroli P:
Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neurotoxicity in
the era of pharmacogenomics. Lancet Oncol 12:
1151-1161, 2011
86. Beutler AS, Kanwar R, Qin R, et al: Sequencing symptom control: Results from the Alliance
N08C1 and N08CA genetics of chemotherapy neuropathy trials. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 2013
(abstr LB-196)
87. Baldwin RM, Owzar K, Zembutsu H, et al: A
genome-wide association study identifies novel loci
for paclitaxel-induced sensory peripheral neuropathy
in CALGB 40101. Clin Cancer Res 18:5099-5109,
2012
88. Hertz DL, Roy S, Motsinger-Reif AA, et al:
CYP2C8*3 increases risk of neuropathy in breast
cancer patients treated with paclitaxel. Ann Oncol
24:1472-1478, 2013
89. Sucheston LE, Zhao H, Yao S, et al: Genetic
predictors of taxane-induced neurotoxicity in a
SWOG phase III intergroup adjuvant breast cancer
treatment trial (S0221). Breast Cancer Res Treat
130:993-1002, 2011
90. Storey DJ, Colvin LA, Boyle D, et al: Topical
menthol: A novel intervention that improved chemotherapy induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) related pain and physical function. Support Care
Cancer 19:S158, 2011 (suppl 2; abstr 263)
91. Nakamura M, Onikubo T, Kamikawa H, et al:
Phase II study of topical menthol for chemotherapyindced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). Ann Oncol
23:ix513, 2012 (suppl 9; abstr)
92. Franconi G, Manni L, Schroder S, et al: A
systematic review of experimental and clinical acupuncture in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
2013:516916, 2013
93. Marineo G, Iorno V, Gandini C, et al: Scrambler therapy may relieve chronic neuropathic pain
more effectively than guideline-based drug management: Results of a pilot, randomized, controlled trial.
J Pain Symptom Manage 43:87-95, 2012
94. Smith TJ, Coyne PJ, Parker GL, et al: Pilot
trial of a patient-specific cutaneous electrostimulation device (MC5-A Calmare) for chemotherapyinduced peripheral neuropathy. J Pain Symptom
Manage 40:883-891, 2010
95. Campbell TC, Retseck J, Eickhoff JC, et al: A
randomized, double-blind study of “Scrambler” therapy versus sham for painful chemotherapy-induced
peripheral neuropathy (CIPN). J Clin Oncol 31:608s,
2013 (suppl; abstr 9635)
96. Brunelli B, Gorson KC: The use of complementary and alternative medicines by patients with
peripheral neuropathy. J Neurol Sci 218:59-66, 2004
97. Schneider BP, Li L, Miller K, et al: Genetic
associations with taxane-induced neuropathy by a
genome-wide association study (GWAS) in E5103.
J Clin Oncol 29:80s, 2011 (suppl; abstr 1000)
98. Speck RM, Sammel MD, Farrar JT, et al:
Impact of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy on treatment delivery in nonmetastatic breast
cancer. J Oncol Pract 9:e234-e240, 2013
99. Multimorbidity. AGSEPotCoOAw. Patientcentered care for older adults with multiple chronic
conditions: A stepwise approach from the American
Geriatrics Society. J Am Geriatr Soc 60:1957-1968,
2012
100. Stubblefield MD, McNeely ML, Alfano CM, et al:
A prospective surveillance model for physical rehabilitation of women with breast cancer: Chemotherapyinduced peripheral neuropathy. Cancer 118:2250-2260,
2012 (suppl)
■ ■ ■
www.jco.org
27
Hershman et al
Acknowledgment
We thank James Frame, MD, Julia Rowland, PhD, the Survivorship Guideline Advisory Group Members, and the Clinical Practice Guidelines
Committee for their thoughtful reviews and insightful comments on this guideline document.
Appendix
Table A1. Guide for Rating Recommendations and Strength of Evidence
Parameter
Type of recommendation
Evidence based
Formal consensus
Informal consensus
No recommendation
Rating for strength of
recommendation
Strong
Moderate
Weak
Rating for strength of
evidence
High
Intermediate
Low
Insufficient
Inconclusive
28
Definition
There was sufficient evidence from published studies to inform a recommendation to guide clinical practice.
The available evidence was deemed insufficient to inform a recommendation to guide clinical practice. Therefore, the expert Panel
used a formal consensus process to reach this recommendation, which is considered the best current guidance for practice.
The Panel may choose to provide a rating for the strength of the recommendation (i.e., “strong,” “moderate,” or “weak”). The
results of the formal consensus process are summarized in the guideline and reported in an online data supplement.
The available evidence was deemed insufficient to inform a recommendation to guide clinical practice. The recommendation is
considered the best current guidance for practice, based on informal consensus of the expert Panel. The Panel agreed that a
formal consensus process was not necessary for reasons described in the literature review and discussion. The Panel may
choose to provide a rating for the strength of the recommendation (i.e., “strong,” “moderate,” or “weak”).
There is insufficient evidence, confidence, or agreement to provide a recommendation to guide clinical practice at this time. The
Panel deemed the available evidence as insufficient and concluded it was unlikely that a formal consensus process would
achieve the level of agreement needed for a recommendation.
There is high confidence that the recommendation reflects best practice. This is based on: a) strong evidence for a true net effect
(eg, benefits exceed harms); b) consistent results, with no or minor exceptions; c) minor or no concerns about study quality;
and/or d) the extent of panelists’ agreement. Other compelling considerations (discussed in the guideline’s literature review and
analyses) may also warrant a strong recommendation. Furthermore, the balance of benefits versus harms substantially favors
the benefits and most patients would want the intervention.
There is moderate confidence that the recommendation reflects best practice. This is based on: a) good evidence for a true net
effect (eg, benefits exceed harms); b) consistent results, with minor and/or few exceptions; c) minor and/or few concerns about
study quality; and/or d) the extent of panelists’ agreement. Other compelling considerations (discussed in the guideline’s
literature review and analyses) may also warrant a moderate recommendation. Most patients would want the intervention, but
many would not.
There is some confidence that the recommendation offers the best current guidance for practice. This is based on: a) limited
evidence for a true net effect (eg, benefits exceed harms); b) consistent results, but with important exceptions; c) concerns
about study quality; and/or d) the extent of panelists’ agreement. Other considerations (discussed in the guideline’s literature
review and analyses) may also warrant a weak recommendation. Some patients would want the intervention, some would not.
Shared decision-making that incorporates benefits and risks is necessary.
Definition
High confidence that the available evidence reflects the true magnitude and direction of the net effect (i.e., balance of benefits
versus harms) and further research is very unlikely to change either the magnitude or direction of this net effect.
Moderate confidence that the available evidence reflects the true magnitude and direction of the net effect. Further research is
unlikely to alter the direction of the net effect however it might alter the magnitude of the net effect.
Low confidence that the available evidence reflects the true magnitude and direction of the net effect. Further research may
change either the magnitude and/or direction this net effect.
Evidence is insufficient to discern the true magnitude and direction of the net effect. Further research may better inform the
topic. The use of the consensus opinion of experts is reasonable to inform outcomes related to the topic.
There is conflicting evidence of effectiveness and further research is needed to inform the topic.
Table A2. Expert Panel Membership
Member
Affiliation
Charles Loprinzi, MD (Co-chair), medical oncology
Dawn Hershman, MD (Co-Chair), medical oncology
Maryam Lustberg, MD, medical oncology
Tom Smith, MD, medical oncology
Nina Wagner-Johnston, MD, medical oncology
Judith Paice, PhD, nursing
Ellen Smith, PhD, nursing
Robert H. Dworkin, PhD, pain research
Bryan Schneider , MD, medical oncology, genetics
Jonathan Bleeker, MD, oncology
Shelby Terstriep, MD, oncology
Guido Cavaletti, MD, neurology
Patrick Gavin, RPh, Alliance patient advocate/pharmacist
Cynthia Chauhan, patient advocate
Mary Lou Smith, patient advocate
Antoinette Lavino, RPh., BCOP, oncology pharmacist, PGIN member
Mayo Clinic
Columbia University Medical Centre
Ohio State University
Johns Hopkins
Washington University
Northwestern University
University of Michigan
University of Rochester
Melvin and Bren Simon Cancer Center, Indiana University
Mayo Clinic
Sanford Roger Maris Cancer Center
University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
Patrick Gavin R.Ph. Consulting LLC
The Mayo Clinic Breast SPORE
Research Advocacy Network
Massachusetts General North Shore Cancer Center Massachusetts
NOTE. Staff: Christina Lacchetti, MHSc, and Kate Bak, MSc, Practice Guidelines Specialists, American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Table A3. Literature Search Strategy
Search Strategy
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
exp Neoplasms/(5517150)
cancer$.mp. (2892023)
or/1-2 (5917802)
neuropath$.mp. (283232)
CIPN.mp. (258)
or/4-5 (283246)
3 and 6 (46,425)
(randomized controlled trial or controlled clinical trial or clinical trial).pt. (627101)
(meta-analysis or meta analysis or meta-analyses or meta analyses or meta-analyzed or meta-analysed or systematic-review).pt. (39,407)
or/8-9 (665901)
7 and 10 (1454)
(letter or editorial or comment$).pt. (2422407)
(case review or case report or case series).ti. (333931)
(infant or child or children or adolescent or pediatric or peadiatric).ti. (1246702)
(diabetic$ or diabetes or arthritis or stem cell).ti. (715227)
or/12-15 (4573330)
11 not 16 (1397)
limit 17 to english language (1334)
limit 18 to human 关Limit not valid in AMED; records were retained兴 (1333)
limit 19 to yr ⫽ ⬙1990 -Current⬙ (1278)
limit 20 to humans 关Limit not valid in AMED; records were retained兴 (1278)
remove duplicates from 21 (1252)
NOTE. Database: Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to April Week 2 2013), EMBASE (1980 to 2013 wk 16), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine; 1985 to April 2013).
www.jco.org
29
Hershman et al
Table A4. Definitions for Rating Potential for Risk of Bias
Rating of Potential for Bias
Low
Intermediate
High
30
Definitions for Rating Potential for Risk of Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials
No major features in the study that risk biased results and none of the limitations are thought to decrease the validity
of the conclusions. The study avoids problems such as failure to apply true randomization, selection of a
population unrepresentative of the target patients, high dropout rates, and no intention-to-treat analysis, and key
study features are described clearly (including the population, setting, interventions, comparison groups,
measurement of outcomes, and reasons for dropouts).
The study is susceptible to some bias, but flaws are not sufficient to invalidate the results. Enough of the items
introduce some uncertainty about the validity of the conclusions. The study does not meet all the criteria required
for a rating of good quality, but no flaw is likely to cause major bias. The study may be missing information,
making it difficult to assess limitations and potential problems.
There are significant flaws that imply biases of various types that may invalidate the results. Several of the items
introduce serious uncertainty about the validity of the conclusions. The study has serious errors in design, analysis,
or reporting; large amounts of missing information; or discrepancies in reporting.

Prevention and Management of Chemotherapy-Induced

Transcription

Similar documents

Only ONE Clinically Proven Treatment for over 300 Types of Neuropathy.

Cancer Pain Management The British Pain Society's

Relief for Peripheral Neuropathy

By Dr. Ramesh R. Manza M.Sc., Ph.D., SET, NET, FIETE, IAEng

Document 6477797

Patofisiologi dan Manajemen Up date Diabetik Neuropati

awareness day - Neuropathy Action Foundation

Small Fiber Neuropathy and Sarcoidosis

Phenotyping Chronic Pain Patients

Foreword - touchONCOLOGY